warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
This is the "ancient aliens" thread, where people ask good questions and every once in a while a guy pops out and says: "I don't know, therefore aliens"
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
That, and "Because Sitchin/the Enuma Elish says so, and prove to me it couldn't have happened."
Then follows several posts explaining the extreme unlikelihood of the bizarre stuff happening - geological, archaeological, historical, anthropological arguments - and they get waved away by "aliens" and a fresh batch of made-up nonsense.
Berzerker
Deity
yes, ancient peoples believed they came from beyond earth
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,652
Only 13 more pages to go until someone wins a bet though.
Perfection
The Great Head.
So why aren't they still here?
Berzerker
Deity
You wanted evidence the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. The link I provided was evidence our water formed at the asteroid belt and the Earth may have formed in the presence of water. That is not evidence the Earth formed here, it is evidence the Earth formed out at a snow line occupied by a hammered bracelet of rock and metal (and ice/water - our water). And back when these collisions happened that hammered bracelet was much more impressive, all those asteroids (and comets?) that have long disappeared or scattered were out there - an Earth sized amount according to another link I posted.
But why is it snide? Would "yer acquaintance Lori" meet with your approval? I thought buddies were good, but you think its a term of derision? I see plenty of snide in your posts, maybe you share Agent's propensity for projection.
The link I provided as evidence wasn't a tabloid website and I already said I had no link to an astronomer claiming the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. I said that long ago.
Okay, Lori aint yer buddy - he's been demoted to acquai... eh, I aint spelling that out just because you think its an insult to be called someone's buddy. The only reason I might consider it an insult is if the person being called my buddy was a scumbag. He came here at your invitation to do you a favor but you get mad when I call him yer buddy, go figure...
The inventor of that phrase was not describing an internet debate devoid of body language, facial expressions and yes, "tone", you're reading insults into my posts because yours are full of them. Much of our 'debate' is over your snide commentary but you keep complaining about the length of the thread.
The Enuma Elish says Tiamat was carved up like a flatfish, ie split in two. That means Heaven and Earth are roughly the same mass. You were complaining about snide?
Evidently you're not gonna show this evidence
Panspermia is possible, life could have been imported to Earth from another solar system, a system that predates ours. And maybe life began there the same way, invading material from an even older system found a new home on a planet with water. Or maybe life is spontaneous once the right conditions are met, even if life can survive from one star system to the next it had to begin somewhere.
But I didn't say an infinite number of solar systems were here, albeit much of the material that did form our nebula undoubtedly came from earlier systems. What happens to a life-bearing planet that survives a supernova or less violent end to its star system? Can the life survive? If such a planet became "rogue" and entered another solar system could the life 'bloom' again? Could it even survive a collision with a planet covered by water?
Berzerker
Deity
Maybe they are, but many cultures have myths of the return of gods or culture bearers... "I will return" seems to be a common theme.
Lexicus
Deity
It is kind of the point though, because someone who knows a bit about orbital mechanics already posted why it's essentially impossible for the Earth to have formed at the asteroid belt.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
There are so many myths out there you could pull anything you want out of them
Yes, I asked for evidence that Earth formed at the asteroid belt. That's Earth, not some glob of water, and a "maybe" Earth formed in the presence of water. Show me a concise, definite statement from an astronomer or astrophysicist in a reputable journal that states "Earth formed in the asteroid belt" and that will be sufficient.
Otherwise, all you're giving me is your own unsupported notions.
Why don't you just refer to him by his username instead of dressing it up in a mischaracterization of how he and I interact online? There is no "demotion" involved here other than in your mind. He's an acquaintance from another site, and I asked him for his input on this issue - there, as I had no idea he was a member here, or that he'd be interested enough to come here.
It's not an insult to be referred to as a "buddy" as long as it's 1. true; and 2. said respectfully/in a friendly way. What you said isn't true, nor was it respectful or friendly.
So if you don't have a link that supports your idea, why do you continue to parrot it?
Apparently you consider it "snide" to ask for evidence of your claims. "Because Sitchin/Enuma Elish said so" is not evidence (and don't bother coming back with a pedantic complaint that you never said that - perhaps not in those exact words, but it's what you meant).
1. Tiamat is a fictitious character.
2. Heaven is an imaginary place.
3. Imaginary places don't have mass.
I just did. Click the "Ring System" link and it will take you to the Wikipedia article you linked. Read the article and you'll find where it talks about the Roche Limit.
The life-bearing planet would have to be a long distance from its primary. Earth won't survive the Sun's red giant phase, at least not with any lifeforms intact. Long before that time we won't have an atmosphere, let alone water or life.
So right now you're just operating on speculation.
Well, naturally, but if that were banned, then people like Graham Hancock, Sitchen and so on would be out of jobs.
Berzerker
Deity
The link was posted before you even asked for it... But you ignored it and moved the goal posts and then repeatedly accused me of not posting a link. You went from wanting evidence to requiring an astronomer who supports the theory. Its just a matter of time, it wont take long for them to connect the dots when they figure out the planet formed in the presence of water located further from the sun.
Can you meet the same standard? Are there astronomers who say definitively the Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt or that it formed here? They'll say "we think Earth formed here" and thats about it. I'd like astronomers to answer my question: how did the Earth form here if it formed in the presence of water located at the asteroid belt?
I did, I said Lori was yer buddy. I know him from another site, if I invited him into a debate and he showed up I wouldn't object if somebody called him my buddy. I even suggested you tell yer buddy to investigate Pluto's possible origin at Saturn to further his career.
So calling Lori your buddy was disrespectful or unfriendly to you? My god, you're complaining about disrespectful, unfriendly behavior? I called Lori yer buddy because he showed up at your invitation, thats what a buddy would do.
I have plenty of links supporting 'my' idea with more to come. The one I posted recently about the solar system's 'tilt' and a 9th planet is getting close to Sitchin's theory, but I think they estimate a ~15,000 year orbit with a still distant perihelion.
Where are those not-so exact words? I'd like to see where I even came close to offering "because Sitchin said so" as a defense. While the subject matter does require defining terms - like what are Heaven and Earth - some of you have spent an inordinate amount of time complaining about words like 'theory' and 'snowline' (and now 'buddy'). Do you really need examples of "snide"? They wont include requests for evidence.
Tiamat is the name given to the primordial world covered by water before the land and life appeared. We call it Earth and it is not fictitious. Heaven is the hammered bracelet left behind at the snow line, the expanse that separated Tiamat's water and it has mass. Originally it had about as much mass as the Earth does now.
The link was to Saturn's rings and I said "Saturn's rings merely represent the planet's equatorial plane, all planets have one". You wanted to change the subject to how Saturn's rings formed. I still dont understand what I said constitutes evidence I didn't read the link? How does the Roche limit show Saturn's rings dont point to Pluto?
But micro-organisms deep under ground might survive if the Earth doesn't get swallowed up by the sun. Maybe as the sun loses mass it'll lose some of its hold on Earth and we'll migrate outward.
Well, yeah...
Perfection
The Great Head.
What's your take on it?
It seems strange that they should remain so hidden from modern society.
Why pull back the curtain if you give people some existential hope that they can't find otherwise?
Since the link doesn't answer what I wanted, it's irrelevant. You still need to provide evidence for your claim if you expect me to take it seriously.
I'm not the goalpost-mover here. As I said, the honor for that goes to timtofly, although you've done a fair bit yourself.
Yes, I want evidence. The most reliable source would be an astronomer. And yes, they might some day publish something that supports your side of the argument, but they haven't done so yet. Your claims are premature.
What part of "you made a claim, so you provide the evidence" is so hard to understand? I am fully prepared to go along with your claim IF you provide evidence. Since you haven't done that, I'm not obliged to agree with you.
As for you having questions for astronomers, why not find one to ask?
There's a difference in tone between "your friend" and "yer buddy." The first is usually perceived in a neutral tone, and the second can be perceived as discourteous and unfriendly, even sneering. You've been told over and over that I did not invite him to post here. I'm glad he decided to, but the point is that it was entirely his own decision. Please stop making things up when you've been told the circumstances numerous times.
"They" who?
I take no responsibility for what others have complained about. What their complaints suggest is that I'm not the only one who thinks this is all out to lunch.
Tiamat is the name of a deity - therefore a fictitious person, since all deities were created by humans.
Heaven is the name of a mythical place where humans go after death. There is no evidence that this is a real place, so it's ridiculous to say that it has the same mass as Earth (or had). You might as well substitute Valhalla or Sto-vo-kor.
And I see you're back to this bracelet thing. I absolutely cannot fathom how anyone can get "hammered bracelet" out of a bunch of rocks orbiting between Jupiter and Mars and calling it "Heaven." I posted a link to what hammered bracelets look like. They're solid. The asteroid belt is not solid.
You were carrying on about Saturn's moons and didn't seem to understand the connection between the moons and the rings.
One of the current theories gives us approximately 600,000 years before Earth becomes seriously uninhabitable. It's a really depressing one - no more oxygen, no water, eventually no biosigns or even plate tectonics. The outer planets and moons might have a chance at developing more life, although they won't have as much time to enjoy it as we have.
This is something that nobody knows for sure, but you seem to be desperately grasping at straws. My point is that the Sun is a much more stable star than the ones that go supernova. If we're heading for such a depressing end - basically a charred lump of rock with no indication that there was ever life here - what chance would a planet around a much younger, more volatile star have?
Well, that's progress - admitting that you're just speculating.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,652
Is there any way you can hide an entire thread to remove the temptation to keep coming back into it?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I do not post in that many threads, so not heading this:
I am going to address a few points here, in the spirit of the departed.
I did not realize that moving goalpost is the ability to carry on a discussion with 4+ different points of view. Since you seem to be one of the few dogmatic "unwilling to change my way of thinking" posters in this thread, I hardly think that changing my opinions is hardly moving goalpost, but adjusting unknowns that have finally made sense to me.
You say you want evidence. Does that mean you are willing to change your mind? If that is the case, why are you on my case when I change my mind? I guess I have some strange ability to post what seems obvious to me, and instead of posters presenting their own observations, all I am getting is criticism on my ability to view things.
Why would you feel obliged at all? You have pointed out points that are obvious to you, and some of them are even legitimate. For the most part, the only thing that makes sense is that there is a difference in how some evidence can be interpreted several different ways, but then the goalpost are moved and you do not even give any legitimacy to any of the counterpoints based on a totally different assumption, and then we have to move to a different ball park to keep up with the argument in question.
We can try this again, and see if points are addressed, or if we have to move to a different argument, instead of the one at hand.
1.) You cannot make a statement using the word "all" and it be taken seriously. You do not know for a fact that "all" deities were created by humans, unless you can prove in every case of every deity (not that you know of) but all those you do not, and prove that a human created such a deity.
2.) Naming a deity is a process, but in the case at hand, these were not gods, but planets which were deified by humans as gods. It would be like awarding some athlete, and giving them a name for their accomplishments. In this case it is attaching some spiritual distinction to a physical body.
3.) Your statement is not addressing the point, but entirely dismissing it based on you blanket argument, instead of a realization that the word means more than just the one point you are pointing out.
I accept that there may have been a group of people who addressed Tiamat as a deity, and more than likely did what ever humans did to recognize that fact, but the point of Tiamat in this thread has been to explain the process whereby an event came about to even give a name that some group of people may have incorporated into their religious experience. Dismissing it as just a concept conveniently removes the action behind the concept, so one does not even have to address the actual topic.
For some reason, Tiamat seems to address several different things, from chaos, to the solar system itself, and then finally a process that actually involved the earth as going through several different experiences before it became what it actually was. In either case the perspective is from one living on this earth, and the misleading assumption that a person is the center of their universe. That is both true and wrong at the same time, as no one knows where the actual center of the universe is. If one can put their ego aside and realize they are not the administrator of their life experiences, it opens up different views and interpretations on their experiences. Tiamat would be the goddess that points that out, regardless of gender overtones.
Heaven in this context is not a mythical place. Neither the Hebrews nor Jews, used heaven as a mythical place. That was a Christian concept, at the most, and something Jesus allegedly promised. Once again moving the goalpost to dismiss the topic at hand. It may be argued that as time went by, and the Hebrews were influenced by their polytheistic neighbors that there is more to Heaven than the physical universe, then perhaps you may have a point.
In the first chapter is does not say that God created the place where this God resided. When you play a simulation game, you do not create your house, your computer, neither the software. You just create your world from what is at hand. In this case God created the universe out of nothing. That is the way it was written, although modern scholars think they know better, and twist the words to fit their pet notions. Even the Enuma Elish that was introduced as a point of authority to compliment the text in the OP says that before all else, a "God" started the process. But even that is ignored.
I agree with you here. You do not address the point that there could be a systematic expansion going on in the formation of the solar system. The whole point about the "bracelet" was a concept inserted when the Greek Bible was translated into Latin. This was after all the Greek influence on what had happened in the physical world. At that point the "scholars" would not even accept the earth as being in the center, but swapped the earth's position with the sun. If they would have agreed that the earth was actually where they put the sun, and the sun was placed as the center, it would have helped those people who are so dogmatic about everything. This has very little to do with the actual intent of the Text we are talking about, as this concept was added hundreds of years after the original was even written. Pointing out that there may be about 4 places in the Bible that show the Jews taught the world was flat, really has nothing to do with the teaching, but stretching way beyond what was actually in context with what the passage was even talking about. It was the "scientist" and those esteemed scholars in Greek and Latin circles that kept these errors about the physical universe going. A flat earth as a disk has always been an extra-biblical process, which some have claimed to be their only place to go to accept if the Bible is true or not. If the Bible does not teach it, and extra-biblical sources do, which one is correct?
I am going to address a few points here, in the spirit of the departed.
I did not realize that moving goalpost is the ability to carry on a discussion with 4+ different points of view. Since you seem to be one of the few dogmatic "unwilling to change my way of thinking" posters in this thread, I hardly think that changing my opinions is hardly moving goalpost, but adjusting unknowns that have finally made sense to me.
You say you want evidence. Does that mean you are willing to change your mind? If that is the case, why are you on my case when I change my mind? I guess I have some strange ability to post what seems obvious to me, and instead of posters presenting their own observations, all I am getting is criticism on my ability to view things.
Why would you feel obliged at all? You have pointed out points that are obvious to you, and some of them are even legitimate. For the most part, the only thing that makes sense is that there is a difference in how some evidence can be interpreted several different ways, but then the goalpost are moved and you do not even give any legitimacy to any of the counterpoints based on a totally different assumption, and then we have to move to a different ball park to keep up with the argument in question.
We can try this again, and see if points are addressed, or if we have to move to a different argument, instead of the one at hand.
1.) You cannot make a statement using the word "all" and it be taken seriously. You do not know for a fact that "all" deities were created by humans, unless you can prove in every case of every deity (not that you know of) but all those you do not, and prove that a human created such a deity.
2.) Naming a deity is a process, but in the case at hand, these were not gods, but planets which were deified by humans as gods. It would be like awarding some athlete, and giving them a name for their accomplishments. In this case it is attaching some spiritual distinction to a physical body.
3.) Your statement is not addressing the point, but entirely dismissing it based on you blanket argument, instead of a realization that the word means more than just the one point you are pointing out.
I accept that there may have been a group of people who addressed Tiamat as a deity, and more than likely did what ever humans did to recognize that fact, but the point of Tiamat in this thread has been to explain the process whereby an event came about to even give a name that some group of people may have incorporated into their religious experience. Dismissing it as just a concept conveniently removes the action behind the concept, so one does not even have to address the actual topic.
For some reason, Tiamat seems to address several different things, from chaos, to the solar system itself, and then finally a process that actually involved the earth as going through several different experiences before it became what it actually was. In either case the perspective is from one living on this earth, and the misleading assumption that a person is the center of their universe. That is both true and wrong at the same time, as no one knows where the actual center of the universe is. If one can put their ego aside and realize they are not the administrator of their life experiences, it opens up different views and interpretations on their experiences. Tiamat would be the goddess that points that out, regardless of gender overtones.
Heaven in this context is not a mythical place. Neither the Hebrews nor Jews, used heaven as a mythical place. That was a Christian concept, at the most, and something Jesus allegedly promised. Once again moving the goalpost to dismiss the topic at hand. It may be argued that as time went by, and the Hebrews were influenced by their polytheistic neighbors that there is more to Heaven than the physical universe, then perhaps you may have a point.
In the first chapter is does not say that God created the place where this God resided. When you play a simulation game, you do not create your house, your computer, neither the software. You just create your world from what is at hand. In this case God created the universe out of nothing. That is the way it was written, although modern scholars think they know better, and twist the words to fit their pet notions. Even the Enuma Elish that was introduced as a point of authority to compliment the text in the OP says that before all else, a "God" started the process. But even that is ignored.
I agree with you here. You do not address the point that there could be a systematic expansion going on in the formation of the solar system. The whole point about the "bracelet" was a concept inserted when the Greek Bible was translated into Latin. This was after all the Greek influence on what had happened in the physical world. At that point the "scholars" would not even accept the earth as being in the center, but swapped the earth's position with the sun. If they would have agreed that the earth was actually where they put the sun, and the sun was placed as the center, it would have helped those people who are so dogmatic about everything. This has very little to do with the actual intent of the Text we are talking about, as this concept was added hundreds of years after the original was even written. Pointing out that there may be about 4 places in the Bible that show the Jews taught the world was flat, really has nothing to do with the teaching, but stretching way beyond what was actually in context with what the passage was even talking about. It was the "scientist" and those esteemed scholars in Greek and Latin circles that kept these errors about the physical universe going. A flat earth as a disk has always been an extra-biblical process, which some have claimed to be their only place to go to accept if the Bible is true or not. If the Bible does not teach it, and extra-biblical sources do, which one is correct?
The OP was a speculative question. What do you mean by progress? This whole thread has been progressive, There have been some conservatives and dogmatics that have made it even more extensive a process.
Similar threads
