In the Beginning...

[Lexicus]

Why isn't it a theory?

A theory is an explanation of natural phenomena that has been repeatedly tested and not disproved. Sitchin's claims about ancient aliens fall into two categories: those which are falsifiable and have already been been falsified, and those which are unfalsifiable and thus outside science and incapable of constituting a theory or even a hypothesis.

Reading a bit about Sitchin it's clear that his stuff might not even rise to the level of "interesting speculations" because apparently the whole thing relies on mistranslating the myths and being wrong about the science.

 

[Senethro]

Maybe we're coming at this from the wrong angle. Maybe Berzerker is running an ARG for Mel Gibsons next movie.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

Which ancient cultures didn't believe in ETs interacting with humanity? Are you now misrepresenting them? Does that make you pretty dishonest? Most of the world's creation cosmologies identify a dark, water covered world preceding the dry land and life.

It is very unlikely that you are seeing secret truths in modern English translations of a different religions holy document.

They didn't keep their truths secret

Yeah yeah, there is some pretty good evidence that there were all kinds of swaps and migrations of planets in the early solar system, including Uranus/Neptune exchanging places, and possibly even Jupiter/Saturn.

But the text in red is still nonsense. It is nonsense because you cannot infer that from findings regarding water.

Your rebuttal had nothing to do with the evidence I posted, whether or not Neptune and Uranus switched places doesn't mean our water formed here.

The Enuma Elish says the olden gods were moving about with destinies still undetermined and chaos reigned, but thats another matter - the evidence shows our water came from the snow line and that the Earth formed in the presence of that water.

So how did the Earth form here when our water was further from the Sun?

Researchers believed our water was brought to us by comets but that theory began falling apart when cometary water proved to be a poor match for our water. So researchers decided asteroids brought our water, and that water was a good match for ours.

The problem with both theories is the age of our water - its too old to have been brought to us. The link I posted even said our water may have preceded the lunar cataclysm, it may have even preceded the birth of the sun.

 

[Berzerker]

A theory is an explanation of natural phenomena that has been repeatedly tested and not disproved.

Theory - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

So now we're back to debating the definition of theory?

Sitchin's claims about ancient aliens fall into two categories: those which are falsifiable and have already been been falsified, and those which are unfalsifiable and thus outside science and incapable of constituting a theory or even a hypothesis.

Why is his claim the world formed at the asteroid belt unfalsifiable and outside of science?

Reading a bit about Sitchin it's clear that his stuff might not even rise to the level of "interesting speculations" because apparently the whole thing relies on mistranslating the myths and being wrong about the science.

What science rules out the Earth forming at the asteroid belt?

Maybe we're coming at this from the wrong angle. Maybe Berzerker is running an ARG for Mel Gibsons next movie.

Your venture into the science didn't last long, you're right back to the insults. I'm not surprised, actually debating science and myth is much harder than being obnoxious.

 

[Senethro]

Which ancient cultures didn't believe in ETs interacting with humanity? Are you now misrepresenting them? Does that make you pretty dishonest? Most of the world's creation cosmologies identify a dark, water covered world preceding the dry land and life.

According to a kooks mistranslations.

Your rebuttal had nothing to do with the evidence I posted, whether or not Neptune and Uranus switched places doesn't mean our water formed here.

It wasn't a rebuttal. I was commenting that the red text was unsupported nonsense that didn't need a rebuttal.

The Enuma Elish says the olden gods were moving about with destinies still undetermined and chaos reigned, but thats another matter - the evidence shows our water came from the snow line and that the Earth formed in the presence of that water.

So how did the Earth form here when our water was further from the Sun?

Very carefully? Whats the problem? What are you asking? Things move.

Researchers believed our water was brought to us by comets but that theory began falling apart when cometary water proved to be a poor match for our water. So researchers decided asteroids brought our water, and that water was a good match for ours.

The problem with both theories is the age of our water - its too old to have been brought to us. The link I posted even said our water may have preceded the lunar cataclysm, it may have even preceded the birth of the sun.

Its an interesting question but it is kooky to invoke secret planets and aliens as the answer.

 

[Berzerker]

According to a kooks mistranslations.

He didn't translate the world's mythologies and you didn't answer my questions. You just misrepresented the beliefs of ancient peoples, does that make you pretty dishonest?

It wasn't a rebuttal. I was commenting that the red text was unsupported nonsense that didn't need a rebuttal.

We dont need no stinking rebuttals! If you weren't attempting a rebuttal why did you mention Neptune? I said (and posted the evidence) our water may have formed at the asteroid belt and this was your response:

Yeah yeah, there is some pretty good evidence that there were all kinds of swaps and migrations of planets in the early solar system, including Uranus/Neptune exchanging places, and possibly even Jupiter/Saturn.

But the text in red is still nonsense. It is nonsense because you cannot infer that from findings regarding water.

Nothing you said refers to where our water formed...

Very carefully? Whats the problem? What are you asking? Things move.

The Earth formed here very carefully? Things move... Yes, and the theory says the Earth moved here from the asteroid belt.

Its an interesting question but it is kooky to invoke secret planets and aliens as the answer.

Aliens didn't move the Earth here and it aint a secret planet, the belief in God's world is widespread. You're misrepresenting their cultures... Does that make you pretty dishonest?

 

[Senethro]

He didn't translate the world's mythologies and you didn't answer my questions. You just misrepresented the beliefs of ancient peoples, does that make you pretty dishonest?

Sitchin wrote translations and they were kooky according to others in the field.
https://www.amazon.com/Zecharia-Sitchin/e/B000APVA3G

Yeah, sorry, I'm above feeling obligated to answer questions about aliens.

We dont need no stinking rebuttals! If you weren't attempting a rebuttal why did you mention Neptune? I said (and posted the evidence) our water may have formed at the asteroid belt and this was your response:

Because I found the planetary migrations interesting? Neptune has little relevance other than being a planet that possibly migrated. Thats why it wasn't a rebuttal and I never intended it as a rebuttal.

The red text was still nonsense and didn't follow on from anything to do with water.

Nothing you said refers to where our water formed...

The water informs us about water and little else.

The Earth formed here very carefully? Things move... Yes, and the theory says the Earth moved here from the asteroid belt.
Aliens didn't move the Earth here and it aint a secret planet, the belief in God's world is widespread. You're misrepresenting their cultures... Does that make you pretty dishonest?

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?

 

[Agent327]

The Earth formed here very carefully? Things move... Yes, and the theory says the Earth moved here from the asteroid belt.

(...)

Aliens didn't move the Earth here and it aint a secret planet, the belief in God's world is widespread. You're misrepresenting their cultures... Does that make you pretty dishonest?

What science rules out the Earth forming at the asteroid belt?

The Enuma Elish says the olden gods were moving about with destinies still undetermined and chaos reigned, but thats another matter - the evidence shows our water came from the snow line and that the Earth formed in the presence of that water.

So how did the Earth form here when our water was further from the Sun?

I'm a bit surprised you are still going on about this after having been shown that 'the Earth moved' is hardly more than a theory that doesn't hold much water - and why. And why are you asking questions already answered?

That isn't the definition of dishonesty... But if thats your standard then everyone claiming there is no scientific evidence in support of Genesis is dishonest...

I'm sorry, that doesn't even remotely follow. If only, as already mentioned, because any scientific evidence that happens to concur with Genesis would be coincidental at best.

I think, by the way, that he is referring to intellectual dishonesty.

Speaking of which:

Lets see, the Earth formed at the asteroid belt following a collision with another planet leading to life on both. No ramifications for science? We've spent decades chasing theories that are turning out to be wrong.

I don't know who 'we' is, but your asteroid belt theory is wrong - and you should know after having it explained to you. So I'm still wondering about any huge ramifications.

You dont know what in Genesis is supported by the science but there's no reason to suspect anything in Genesis would be supported by the science?

I'm not quite sure you even know what you just said... But we'll get back to it in a second.

I took geology in college, the teacher didn't spend any time talking about the possible rotation of the world 4.5 bya. If you and everyone else but me knows it was spinning, good for you. I dont claim to know...

Well, now you know you haven't been paying much attention at least. But here's a quick update: if the Earth is spinning today, there's no reason to assume that at some time in the past she suddenly decided to start spinning. That's not even basic geology, but basic logic. You may now claim to know.

Genesis doesn't say there were no lights... How do you think the world had night and day? God's first act of creation was "Light".

Wrong again. "And God said: Let there be light, and there was light (Gen. 1:3), which follows right after "The Earth was desolate and void, and darkness lay upon the waters..." which follows after "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1.)

You may note that Genesis already starts off wrong. 'The heavens' were created quite a while before 'the earth', and Earth wasn't created before the sun. Clearly this is not a scientific description of actual events.

The 11 orbs includes the Moon. But "we" didn't write the Enuma Elish... The people who did described the sun and 8 planets followed by the addition of Marduk, Pluto and the Moon.

You can't actually see Pluto, you know. But we seem to have stumbled upon another problem: in antiquity it was not known that our solar satellites and the sun itself were orbs. (For instance in Egypt, one of the gods is the 'solar disk'.)

You said there was no flood, now you're changing that to no worldwide flood. There was a flood, sea levels rose several hundred feet following the ice age. Arguing there was no flood is not the same as claiming details about that flood were wrong.

I'm not changing anything. It's just that it's sometimes hard to keep up with what you keep coming up with: "There was a flood, sea levels rose several hundred feet following the ice age." Wrong on both counts.

There was no cosmic event signaling the birth of Jesus because the rest of the world didn't see a comet? How do you know it was a comet or that it was missed by everyone else? I just quoted the Bible's prophecies of his return and it describes cosmic events.

Which I just discussed, and you ignore. Now the 'cosmic event' associated with Jesus' birth (only occurs in one of the gospels, by the way, which should give you a clue) is a 'travelling star'. Stars neither travel nor fall, so comet would be the best next thing. This comet is not reported in any other source - including the other gospels. Now, even if this 'event' weren't associated with the apocryphal Bethlehem story (Jesus was born in Nazareth), this is a clear indication of embellishment of a story without basis in actual fact.

It didn't say the sun would die

Oh, but it will.

The sun dying would have no other cosmic consequences?

Not for us no. We'll have disappeared long before, you see.

The rank of Enlil was 50 and he was Lord of the Earth. The celestial 7 is 50 refers to the Earth as his domain.

I still don't see how 7 is 50, celestial or otherwise. And yet, it's perfectly clear to me how God is both 1 and 3. It seems to me you shouldn't use the word "is" here.

But you claiming it was an example makes it one? He said the text on VA 243 was unrelated to the celestial imagery, therefore it wasn't celestial imagery. But he also thinks VA 243 showed a constellation. Does the text relate to a constellation? The panel at Nine Mile Canyon had no text, how is that an example of a cylinder seal with text?

I didn't claim anything. I can't help it if you can't tell what an example is. Secondly, you appear to be misrepresenting the argument of the example in order to be able to stick to your guns. But I'm getting the distinct impression you like to stick to your guns no matter the counterargument. Now that, my friend, is intellectual dishonesty. (Just an example.)

Who said the seal represents 7 planets?

I know the answer, as I read carefully. The question is: do you, and do you care?

 

[Berzerker]

Sitchin wrote translations and they were kooky according to others in the field.

Again, Sitchin didn't author the world's mythologies. If we ignore him you still need to deal with all those myths that claim the world was dark and covered by water, including Genesis.

Yeah, sorry, I'm above feeling obligated to answer questions about aliens.

These are the questions you're dodging:

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

That was the standard you used to accuse me of dishonesty. I still dont know how I misrepresented the myths of ancient cultures, you didn't support that accusation either.

Because I found the planetary migrations interesting? Neptune has little relevance other than being a planet that possibly migrated. Thats why it wasn't a rebuttal and I never intended it as a rebuttal.

I know its not a rebuttal, I said Neptune had nothing to do with our water at the asteroid belt. So whats yer point? You found something of no relevance interesting? I said our water may have come from the asteroid belt and you responded with Neptune.

The red text was still nonsense and didn't follow on from anything to do with water.

You said it was unsupported nonsense, it was neither - I supported the proposition the Earth formed in water located at the asteroid belt.

The water informs us about water and little else.

The link (did you even read it?) said there is evidence the Earth formed in the presence of water that may predate both the lunar cataclysm and the sun. And the link said that water formed at the asteroid belt. So how did the Earth form here and in the presence of water located at the asteroid belt?

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?

The Earth is not a secret planet, "it" refers to God's world:

it aint a secret planet, the belief in God's world is widespread.

You misread what I posted

 

[Berzerker]

And why are you asking questions already answered?

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

any scientific evidence that happens to concur with Genesis would be coincidental at best.

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.

I think, by the way, that he is referring to intellectual dishonesty.

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

I don't know who 'we' is, but your asteroid belt theory is wrong - and you should know after having it explained to you. So I'm still wondering about any huge ramifications.

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

I'm not quite sure you even know what you just said... But we'll get back to it in a second.

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.

There's no reason but you wouldn't really know

Well, now you know you haven't been paying much attention at least.

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

But here's a quick update: if the Earth is spinning today, there's no reason to assume that at some time in the past she suddenly decided to start spinning. That's not even basic geology, but basic logic. You may now claim to know.

I know its not basic geology, you were the one who said it was. Is it possible for a large object to strike the Earth causing it to spin? Was the world spinning before the lunar cataclysm? You said everybody but me knew it was, you got a link for that?

Wrong again. "And God said: Let there be light, and there was light (Gen. 1:3), which follows right after "The Earth was desolate and void, and darkness lay upon the waters..." which follows after "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1.)

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.

'The heavens' were created quite a while before 'the earth', and Earth wasn't created before the sun. Clearly this is not a scientific description of actual events.

Heaven was placed amidst the waters on the 2nd day and the dry land called Earth appeared on the 3rd day. What happened on the 1st day? Day and night, the world was spinning near a star - the sun.

You can't actually see Pluto, you know.

God 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.

But we seem to have stumbled upon another problem: in antiquity it was not known that our solar satellites and the sun itself were orbs.

Citation?

I'm not changing anything. It's just that it's sometimes hard to keep up with what you keep coming up with: "There was a flood, sea levels rose several hundred feet following the ice age." Wrong on both counts.

You changed "no flood" to "no worldwide flood". Sea levels didn't rise several hundred feet following the ice age? Maybe you should ask your HS geology teacher.

Which I just discussed, and you ignore.

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

Now the 'cosmic event' associated with Jesus' birth (only occurs in one of the gospels, by the way, which should give you a clue) is a 'travelling star'. Stars neither travel nor fall, so comet would be the best next thing. This comet is not reported in any other source - including the other gospels.

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

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

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

Oh, but it will.

Not for us no. We'll have disappeared long before, you see.

The text doesn't say the sun will die before Jesus returns

I still don't see how 7 is 50, celestial or otherwise. And yet, it's perfectly clear to me how God is both 1 and 3. It seems to me you shouldn't use the word "is" here.

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).

I didn't claim anything. I can't help it if you can't tell what an example is.

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.

Secondly, you appear to be misrepresenting the argument of the example in order to be able to stick to your guns. But I'm getting the distinct impression you like to stick to your guns no matter the counterargument. Now that, my friend, is intellectual dishonesty. (Just an example.)

How did I misrepresent the argument?

I know the answer, as I read carefully. The question is: do you, and do you care?

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

 

[Senethro]

Again, Sitchin didn't author the world's mythologies. If we ignore him you still need to deal with all those myths that claim the world was dark and covered by water, including Genesis.

I deal with myths by dismissing them, along with the rest of the unevidenced supernatural. They offer cultural insight, not scientific insight.

People who are not in a Dan Brown novel don't go looking for secret truths in myths.

I contest that some cherrypicked passages even refer to a single thing. I contest that it refers to a scientific account off the Earth's formation. I contest that aliens gave them this knowledge (because thats where this is going)

These are the questions you're dodging:

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

That was the standard you used to accuse me of dishonesty. I still dont know how I misrepresented the myths of ancient cultures, you didn't support that accusation either.

Get your head out of your Sitchin.

I know its not a rebuttal, I said Neptune had nothing to do with our water at the asteroid belt. So whats yer point? You found something of no relevance interesting? I said our water may have come from the asteroid belt and you responded with Neptune.


You said it was unsupported nonsense, it was neither - I supported the proposition the Earth formed in water located at the asteroid belt.

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.

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.

The link (did you even read it?) said there is evidence the Earth formed in the presence of water that may predate both the lunar cataclysm and the sun. And the link said that water formed at the asteroid belt. So how did the Earth form here and in the presence of water located at the asteroid belt?

The Earth is not a secret planet, "it" refers to God's world:

You misread what I posted

Pardon me for the misreading then.

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

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.

 

[timtofly]

Well, now you know you haven't been paying much attention at least. But here's a quick update: if the Earth is spinning today, there's no reason to assume that at some time in the past she suddenly decided to start spinning. That's not even basic geology, but basic logic. You may now claim to know.

At what point does something without form start to spin? Why mix your metaphors? Unless you are an atheist, most religious or secular humans accept some force at work. If they do not, then they believe one thing, and think another. From what I have read, most think that the sun and earth formed at the same time.

Wrong again. "And God said: Let there be light, and there was light (Gen. 1:3), which follows right after "The Earth was desolate and void, and darkness lay upon the waters..." which follows after "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1.)

You may note that Genesis already starts off wrong. 'The heavens' were created quite a while before 'the earth', and Earth wasn't created before the sun. Clearly this is not a scientific description of actual events.

Are you saying that you agree with Berzerker that the Hebrews do not define the phrase in verse 1 to mean the universe? 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. 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? That would indicate you are not sure that it formed in it's current location. 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. It seems to be a drawn out process, but even over a period of 4 days does not indicate an immediate process.

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. The light of the sun was not completed, until day 4. That does not mean there was no sun until then. It means the sun was still changing, evolving, accreting until day 4. The action started with the advent of light, which was then immediately changed to darkness and light throughout the universe, because the action was performed on the universe as a whole. If you accept the claim of redshift, and thousands of year of darkness, and that the universe is homogenous, I do not see that "proving the Bible wrong". Even if you point out that a day is 24 hours, and it took billions of years, I will point out that it does not say it took a day. It just says that when humans travel across the universe their day will be uniform. Obviously the sun is not going to be in view at all times, but a day will still be 24 hours. Technically it never says that a day is 24 hours. It is the assumption that things never change (accept what we claim is evolution) thus because it is 24 hours now, it was 24 hours then. We get to pick and choose what we want to evolve?

There is no secret in the myth. Humans needed some modern knowledge to properly state what happened. Other wise they got the same information that every one between the first writing and now have. We just have a well formed idea of the mechanics. As for stating what a day was, unless the earth had longer or shorter days, in the last 3.7 billion years, or however long it has been spinning and rotating near a sun, then a day is still a day. I am curious though at what point do you see the earth spinning properly to have a 24 hour day. If a planet just happened to be out in the middle of nowhere, does it spin or not? I think that most just think that matter was spinning and coalescing in the accretion process. Do we really know the history of the spin, and at what time it would have been rotating at the current speed? AFAIK most of the details are mere speculation, as evolution seems to jump in huge increments where most of the detail in between is not that relative.

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

You can't actually see Pluto, you know. But we seem to have stumbled upon another problem: in antiquity it was not known that our solar satellites and the sun itself were orbs. (For instance in Egypt, one of the gods is the 'solar disk'.)

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

That is the same thing Berzerker is doing.

I deal with myths by dismissing them, along with the rest of the unevidenced supernatural. They offer cultural insight, not scientific insight.

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

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.

Doesn't science sort of dictate the culture these days? Just because the ancients did not have some of the proper tools, does not mean they attributed everything to the unknown. 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.

Humans who have knowledge normally use it to control humans who could care less, or who are actually kept in the dark. I am not claiming they were some advanced scientific community, but I think that we are fooling ourselves, if we deny they knew things that we no longer have any knowledge of. If we limit our facts to only that which we have control over, we miss out on large parts of the human experience.

 

[Senethro]

Doesn't science sort of dictate the culture these days?

Only in the sense that it is the most successful process of examining the world, so its findings get used and misused by various actors.

Just because the ancients did not have some of the proper tools, does not mean they attributed everything to the unknown.

Yes it does. If you are correct without knowing why, you made a lucky guess. If you can't measure a thing then you don't really know it.

Its worth pointing out that some incredible observations were made with very simple tools, such as approximating the Earth's circumference through measuring the shadows of obelisks. Genius makes do.

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.

Depends how fragmentary the writings of any particular culture are. A greater number of Sumerian texts have been translated since the active phase of Sitchin, including many astronomical texts that give insight as to their knowledge of planets. They describe all the planets as far as Saturn.

Humans who have knowledge normally use it to control humans who could care less, or who are actually kept in the dark. I am not claiming they were some advanced scientific community, but I think that we are fooling ourselves, if we deny they knew things that we no longer have any knowledge of. If we limit our facts to only that which we have control over, we miss out on large parts of the human experience.

This is nonsense mixed with semi-truths. I don't really know how to respond to it other than to broadly disagree.

 

[timtofly]

Only in the sense that it is the most successful process of examining the world, so its findings get used and misused by various actors.


Yes it does. If you are correct without knowing why, you made a lucky guess. If you can't measure a thing then you don't really know it.

Its worth pointing out that some incredible observations were made with very simple tools, such as approximating the Earth's circumference through measuring the shadows of obelisks. Genius makes do.


Depends how fragmentary the writings of any particular culture are. A greater number of Sumerian texts have been translated since the active phase of Sitchin, including many astronomical texts that give insight as to their knowledge of planets. They describe all the planets as far as Saturn.



This is nonsense mixed with semi-truths. I don't really know how to respond to it other than to broadly disagree.

You pointed out that they could describe the planets, but they are wrong because we have yet to learn how they did that?

It would seem that the more accurate knowledge we have of them, the more capable they are at actually knowing something.

 

[Senethro]

You pointed out that they could describe the planets, but they are wrong because we have yet to learn how they did that?

It would seem that the more accurate knowledge we have of them, the more capable they are at actually knowing something.

Uhhhhh. Ummmmm. They described the planets that are visible to the naked eye. The ones you look up and see at night. They did not describe the planets they could not see, such as Neptune.

There is no mystery about how humans were able to detect Venus.

 

[timtofly]

Uhhhhh. Ummmmm. They described the planets that are visible to the naked eye. The ones you look up and see at night. They did not describe the planets they could not see, such as Neptune.

There is no mystery about how humans were able to detect Venus.

Then we'll just stick to the point where they only knew, "what I claim they know"? I am not sure, how you can prove they could not see them. That is the point about them that is unknown to me, so all I can do is believe you know the truth. I have only seen, what is claimed to be Mars. I have to trust what others have claimed about the rest.

 

[El_Machinae]

Its still a cosmic event signaling the return of Jesus, Agent said there were none.

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.

 

[Lexicus]

Then we'll just stick to the point where they only knew, "what I claim they know"? I am not sure, how you can prove they could not see them. That is the point about them that is unknown to me, so all I can do is believe you know the truth. I have only seen, what is claimed to be Mars. I have to trust what others have claimed about the rest.

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.

 

[Senethro]

Then we'll just stick to the point where they only knew, "what I claim they know"? I am not sure, how you can prove they could not see them. That is the point about them that is unknown to me, so all I can do is believe you know the truth. I have only seen, what is claimed to be Mars. I have to trust what others have claimed about the rest.

The likelihood is that planets have not undergone huge apparent changes in visible luminosity from the perspective of Earth and that human eyesight has not degraded. If you want to contest either statement then you could educate yourself on the eyes of human remains and do some deep reading of the anomalous results of ancient astronomical catalogues. Both are way way outside my knowledge.

The astronomically inclined ancient cultures consistently found Mercury through Saturn and under exceptional viewing conditions maybe some guys saw things like Ceres or the four large moons of Jupiter. There is some doubt.

To see more you need a telescope. Telescopes require advanced glass manufacturing (which leaves physical remains of industry) and have never been discovered by archaeologists. They are a useful military and naval technology that could not be kept hidden and no ancient scholars refer to the remarkable glass long distance viewing tube.

So we have an absence of records of secret planets, and an absence of tools used to detect secret planets. There were probably not secret planets known to the ancients but not to us.

But I said as much in this thread months ago before I realized this thread was a Sitchin trojan horse.



Edit: Ugh, clearly I spent too long writing!
Lexicus: While reading around I learned there was some speculation that some ancient observers accidentally recorded Uranus as a star and that because a Uranian year is 84 earth years, much longer than the life of the working astronomer and making its motion in the sky extremely slow, noone noticed the error.

 

[Kyriakos]

Its worth pointing out that some incredible observations were made with very simple tools, such as approximating the Earth's circumference through measuring the shadows of obelisks. Genius makes do.

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.