Anonymouse Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 (edited) Read these books and you will see why the ancients believed in "Gods", plural. Interestingly enough, the Bible, originally in Aramaic, speaks of gods plural, in the form of Elohim, not God. There has been a mistranslation whether intention or unintentional. I apologize for the messy post. http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/thumbs/item263t.jpghttp://www.grahamhancock.com/images/library/3s.jpg http://www.sitchin.com/images/smallcover1.jpg http://www.sitchin.com/images/smallcover6.jpghttp://www.sitchin.com/images/smallcover7.jpg Edited March 7, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Anka_ Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Thanks! I've heard of these books before but haven't had the chance to read them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Thanks! I've heard of these books before but haven't had the chance to read them. Why would you waste your time in popular trash.Try reading Descartes and he is more then enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted March 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 Why would you waste your time in popular trash.Try reading Descartes and he is more then enough. Popular trash? If you haven't read them how would you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 i dont think any peice of literature is trash, everything has a meaning and a significance- just because it may not be interesting for you doesnt mean its trash.... one mans trash is anothers treasure- it takes alot of dismissiveness and sad to say ignorance to make such assumptions...i dont respect such things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 i dont think any peice of literature is trash, everything has a meaning and a significance- just because it may not be interesting for you doesnt mean its trash.... one mans trash is anothers treasure- it takes alot of dismissiveness and sad to say ignorance to make such assumptions...i dont respect such things... I will not go as far as Armat, but he do have a point here... not only Descartes, but there is many worthy works. So why reading works writen by bozzos that interprate already writen books the way they want by comming with new theories that makes fewer sense than the works that they try to attach sense to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted March 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 I will not go as far as Armat, but he do have a point here... not only Descartes, but there is many worthy works. So why reading works writen by bozzos that interprate already writen books the way they want by comming with new theories that makes fewer sense than the works that they try to attach sense to them. Once again without having read the said books and opening your own views to critique it is ignorant to say that they are bozzos that are interpreting already written books the way they want to. What makes you believe that the new theories make less sense if one hasn't personally studied them and analyzed them? Leave it to the division between the physical and the spiritual nature of what it means to be human thanks to Descartes' "mind/body" dualism made us accept such a division of our basic nature. And now we are in a state of never ending turbulence a major cause of it which I believe is result of accepting this division between our physical and spiritual natures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 (edited) Once again without having read the said books and opening your own views to critique it is ignorant to say that they are bozzos that are interpreting already written books the way they want to. What makes you believe that the new theories make less sense if one hasn't personally studied them and analyzed them? Leave it to the division between the physical and the spiritual nature of what it means to be human thanks to Descartes' "mind/body" dualism made us accept such a division of our basic nature. And now we are in a state of never ending turbulence a major cause of it which I believe is result of accepting this division between our physical and spiritual natures. And you without knowing if I already have read some of the books critic my critic... same thing right? I have read "The Twelfth Planet : Book I of the Earth Chronicles" And there is everything in to know whom Zecharia Sitchin is. No one ignores that he knows how to decipher Sumerian, but that this individual whom possess no real knowledge of astronomy and physic and makes claims such as his theory of another planet orbiting the Sun like a Commet that come visit Earth every about 3500 years, and which the gravitational poles makes Earth switch in its axes etc... The only reason I have read this guy was because of him having "deciphered" Sumerian tablets and I wanted to know more about how the old testmanent was inspired by Summerian stories... but Zecharia Sitchin is just a waste of time... hw makes connections where there isn't any... he takes few words and come up with something that you have no idea how he came with, he makes astronomical basic mistakes mixing the known Earth shifting on its axe that is known, with a supposed outside gravitational forces, that from his "expertise" is another planet. As for the rest of what you wrote in your last reply, I have no idea what you are singing as usual. Edited March 9, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted March 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 And you without knowing if I already have read some of the books critic my critic... same thing right? I have read "The Twelfth Planet : Book I of the Earth Chronicles" And there is everything in to know whom Zecharia Sitchin is. No one ignores that he knows how to decipher Sumerian, but that this individual whom possess no real knowledge of astronomy and physic and makes claims such as his theory of another planet orbiting the Sun like a Commet that come visit Earth every about 3500 years, and which the gravitational poles makes Earth switch in its axes etc... The only reason I have read this guy was because of him having "deciphered" Sumerian tablets and I wanted to know more about how the old testmanent was inspired by Summerian stories... but Zecharia Sitchin is just a waste of time... hw makes connections where there isn't any... he takes few words and come up with something that you have no idea how he came with, he makes astronomical basic mistakes mixing the known Earth shifting on its axe that is known, with a supposed outside gravitational forces, that from his "expertise" is another planet. As for the rest of what you wrote in your last reply, I have no idea what you are singing as usual. You do realize that it is not "known" that the earth shifts on its axes but it is just a guess, right, along with a myriad of other 'facts' that we seem to think we know. It is all the likely that Sitchin could be right in his analysis, over the talking heads at Nasa. After reviewing Sitchin, and Graham Hancock, I am more inclined to take up on their thesis, than any of the arrogant earthlings who claim to "know" for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 You do realize that it is not "known" that the earth shifts on its axes but it is just a guess, right, along with a myriad of other 'facts' that we seem to think we know. It is all the likely that Sitchin could be right in his analysis, over the talking heads at Nasa. After reviewing Sitchin, and Graham Hancock, I am more inclined to take up on their thesis, than any of the arrogant earthlings who claim to "know" for sure. Earth shifting is known, it is calculated very precisly, and we know the next time it will happen... of course you can keep believing people that have no knowledge of astronomy over specialists on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted March 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Earth shifting is known, it is calculated very precisly, and we know the next time it will happen... of course you can keep believing people that have no knowledge of astronomy over specialists on the field. It is not "known" it is an "educated guess", a more applicable term. Just like we will never know how to calculate the exact age of earth, it is a guess, because our ability to tell time itself is arbitrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 It is not "known" it is an "educated guess", a more applicable term. So what is known? is anything "known"? ... or it's all educated guesses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 (edited) It is not "known" it is an "educated guess", a more applicable term. Just like we will never know how to calculate the exact age of earth, it is a guess, because our ability to tell time itself is arbitrary. Dude, it is observed as we speak, the angle switch of Earth on its revolution around the Sun is calculated, the axes shifting is as well calculated... this is not like the age of Earth or the Sun, it is observed, and you can yourself do an experiment which will take you about 30 years with the Polair star that will show you it is an observation. You really amaze me, you believe some crapot that makes basic astronomical mistakes and that start bring a stupid theory which if it were true, Earth would be destroyed by now. If you don't know of what I am reffering to, run a little research regarding the Moon and why it is so big compared to its planet... it has no sense at all... even if such a planet could exist, a revolution of 3500 years at a distant that we can not tract it, that planet would be farer than Pluton, its temperature would be near absolut zero, how the hell do you expect any form of life forming in such a planet? Read the authors arguments to support his hypotheses... statistically there is more chance that the Genesis is true and that in fact a God created the universe in 7 days than what this individual suggest... This is what i meant when I said that his interpretation of the "book" made less sense than the book itself. Edited March 10, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 So what is known? is anything "known"? ... or it's all educated guesses? Actually, from my theory of the multiple universes what he affirms could be true... and is true... but we live not in that possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted March 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Dude, it is observed as we speak, the angle switch of Earth on its revolution around the Sun is calculated, the axes shifting is as well calculated... this is not like the age of Earth or the Sun, it is observed, and you can yourself do an experiment which will take you about 30 years with the Polair star that will show you it is an observation. It's all a belief Mr. Domino. If you haven't figured that out you should. Where are these numbers you speak of? How are they calculated and how are they applied? "Years" you say? And what are "years" based on? Our arbitrary ability of measuring time. You really amaze me, you believe some crapot that makes basic astronomical mistakes and that start bring a stupid theory which if it were true, Earth would be destroyed by now. If you don't know of what I am reffering to, run a little research regarding the Moon and why it is so big compared to its planet... it has no sense at all... even if such a planet could exist, a revolution of 3500 years at a distant that we can not tract it, that planet would be farer than Pluton, its temperature would be near absolut zero, how the hell do you expect any form of life forming in such a planet? I never said I am a blind believer in everything Sitchin wrote but to me I am inclined to believe in the theory that human civilization is founded by an outside race. If there is enough evidence for the god awful theory of evolution that people believe in like a cult, there is enough evidence for this. There is even a theory that suggests the moon is an alien, or artificial satellite and it is hallow. One can make a theory for anything, it doesn't mean anything, the only thing that matters is which theory the masses subscribe to and lo and behold it becomes 'fact'. Read the authors arguments to support his hypotheses... statistically there is more chance that the Genesis is true and that in fact a God created the universe in 7 days than what this individual suggest... This is what i meant when I said that his interpretation of the "book" made less sense than the book itself. Statistically, or mathematically speaking evolution is highly improbable, yet people believe in it more fanatically than the Gestapo had faith in Hitler. No one can know if reality is existent. They can know they are real due to the fact that they have a concious mind, but they can never know if life or all it entails is truly existent or some elaborate hallucination because they cannot know if anyone else has a concious mind. See solipsism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 (edited) Anon, with all the long posts you make, every time you write about a subject that I am interested in and know about, I read them; I always realise that you have no clue of what you are talking about. I can’t help it, but that is an observation. You yourself admitted physic not being your force, and yet now! You answer me by bringing my own argument regarding “belief” into the picture. If it was just that, it isn’t just that, you talk about things that have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. An example, who cares on what years are based on? It is a measure, we could use one apple as a standard or whatever… we could have decided to use 12 as bases and not 10 in math… we could have fixed any standards, it would have changed nothing. Every 26,000 years Earth complete its shifting of axes, the 3600 years is a partial one… those datas are known, measured, it happens bit by bit every days, just do a google research, the stars positions have “changed” gradually over the years, it is an illusion created by this shifting, it isn’t only measured, but it is even expected… we can even observe it for other planets such as Mars… Satellites measure it as well for Earth. Your author uses those observations to come up with his hypotheses of the “why.” This is a reason why I am starting to believe that you have even not read the books of the author… you reject his bases to come up with his weird theories, and by doing such, your entire argumentation crumble. Read the first two parts of the work regarding the 12ft planet (actually it is the 10nt; he measures the planets like the ancient method). As for natural selection and the theory of evolution. Stop jumping from A to B! But since we are at it, you are fooled by the selectivity effect known in science. Your belief that humans were created by aliens statistically speaking is less probable than the theory of evolution… because now in the equation not only have we to add the probability there is that aliens actually were responsible of life on Earth, but we have to add on those statistics the “how” of those aliens. Which means, that we must find a theory that would explain how those aliens exist, etc… the problem is just pushed elsewhere. So adding and adding, you will end up that natural selection and the theory of evolution is more probable than the theories regarding an alien implication. The most likely theory here is the multiple universe theory. As for the rest of your post, ... nothing to do with the discussion. Edited March 11, 2004 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 … we could have decided to use 12 as bases and not 10 in math… we could have fixed any standards. I think Hexadecimal would have been the best choice. Only if we had had 16 fingers instead of 10, maybe the world would have been a better place! I just wanted to point out that if you work out the math, you'll probably discover that the most likely outcome was for us to never have existed at all. Well, yet here we are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 I think Hexadecimal would have been the best choice. Only if we had had 16 fingers instead of 10, maybe the world would have been a better place! I just wanted to point out that if you work out the math, you'll probably discover that the most likely outcome was for us to never have existed at all. Well, yet here we are You know what amazes me with you? Even when you don't expect to make sense you make sense... "I just wanted to point out that if you work out the math, you'll probably discover that the most likely outcome was for us to never have existed at all. Well, yet here we are :)" This is the whole point of the selectivity effect. We must exist to be self aware... by being self-aware, we are biased, because all the rest of the possibilities where there is no self-awarness, we could not be there to question them, even if statistically speaking there is more chances that the later happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Who said I don't expect to make sense I am enjoying the discussion by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 I split the thread, go on with the new subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted March 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Anon, with all the long posts you make, every time you write about a subject that I am interested in and know about, I read them; I always realise that you have no clue of what you are talking about. I can’t help it, but that is an observation. You yourself admitted physic not being your force, and yet now! You answer me by bringing my own argument regarding “belief” into the picture. If it was just that, it isn’t just that, you talk about things that have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. That's funny I could have swore that you had no clue what you were talking about. But instead of resorting to childish name calling because I threaten your "intellectual" matrix, why not stick to the issues and not ad homenims? An example, who cares on what years are based on? It is a measure, we could use one apple as a standard or whatever… I care what "years" are based on, because it only shows how our measurement of time is arbitrary and for you to base a theory on this and call it "Fact" and name call me for daring to question it, is the last refuge of the pointless. Since humanity is finite and imperfect and its perception flawed, therefore any attempt by humans to measure time is going to be flawed, even for scientists. we could have decided to use 12 as bases and not 10 in math… we could have fixed any standards, it would have changed nothing. Every 26,000 years Earth complete its shifting of axes, the 3600 years is a partial one… those datas are known, measured, it happens bit by bit every days, just do a google research, the stars positions have “changed” gradually over the years, it is an illusion created by this shifting, it isn’t only measured, but it is even expected… we can even observe it for other planets such as Mars… Satellites measure it as well for Earth. Your author uses those observations to come up with his hypotheses of the “why.” This is a reason why I am starting to believe that you have even not read the books of the author… you reject his bases to come up with his weird theories, and by doing such, your entire argumentation crumble. Read the first two parts of the work regarding the 12ft planet (actually it is the 10nt; he measures the planets like the ancient method). I an not contending the fact that the earth is measured in those numbers those simply stem from theoretical calculations and if you can't deal with that on its face value, you are trying too hard to believe. I am declaring that our measurement of time is arbitrary, hence it could be misconstrued and misunderstood, and in fact wrong, when trying to compare our measurement of time to the ancients. I am aware what Sitchin does and what standards he uses, the same as others. I find his theory appealing, far more appealing than evolution, but then again I will point out that which is unknown. Just because I read the book, and unlike you, don't blindly subscribe to everything, doesn't mean I haven't read it. I have maintained that I am more inclinded to believe the theory Sitchin presents, over that of evolution. For example gravity is just another theory, it is believed. We don't know what gravity is, but we believe in it, as it is a good explanation. In other words, 'science' often times behaves like a religion, but you will never hear the 'scientifical' minds admit to this. The same is applied to our measurement of time, which is an intangible thing. We find it complex to think of unlimited space, yet theology and religion offer us the idea of unlimited space of the universe. We have become accustomed to thinking of space as having some beginning and consequently some ending amnd think that since we have rules and tape measures by which people can measure the space around them, there cannot be space taht is immeasurable, or going to such an extent as to have no limit and be beyond any measurement. Unconsciously, we also associate the duration of time with the extent of space. Through his objective consciosness of a 3 dimensional world we believe that time extends itself and that space extends itself. We think that these extensions are much similar and coincidental or related to each other. Hence, we think that it must require a certain number of minutes to move ourselves or something a certain number of meters. We believe that if we roll a ball along the ground the extent of space it covers is related to the extent of time it will take to cover that space. And we have learned that we can cut down or reduce the extent in that same direction of space by faster motion and therefore by being rolle dfaster the ball will go the same distance in a shorter time. As for natural selection and the theory of evolution. Stop jumping from A to B! But since we are at it, you are fooled by the selectivity effect known in science. Your belief that humans were created by aliens statistically speaking is less probable than the theory of evolution… because now in the equation not only have we to add the probability there is that aliens actually were responsible of life on Earth, but we have to add on those statistics the “how” of those aliens. Which means, that we must find a theory that would explain how those aliens exist, etc… the problem is just pushed elsewhere. So adding and adding, you will end up that natural selection and the theory of evolution is more probable than the theories regarding an alien implication. The most likely theory here is the multiple universe theory. This is simply off topic, since this thread was obviously created not to deal with evolution. Suffice to say, a theory is a theory, treat them all the same. Ultimately it's that which is appealing to us, wouldn't you agree? I find evolution far more doubtful, than intelligent intervention, simply for its persistence on being nothing but chance and haphazard by nature, and that from some random mutations we can get ordered and structured organisms. The further lack of evidence ) fossils ) for establishing it as a fact, itself doesn't bode too well for evolution. Ultimately the conclusion does not follow the premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 (edited) Delusions : False belief about which a person is convinced despite the absence of concrete evidence. Belief such as Earth does not revolve around the Sun, or that humanity has been created by aliens. That all the traces supporting the theory of evolution were just left there to fool humans. Etc… etc... etc... Delusion is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Edited March 22, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted March 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 (edited) When confronted with a superior mind, it is best to resort to ad homenim attacks. Edited March 23, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 (edited) Grandiose delusions : Exaggerated belief of one's importance, power, knowledge or identity. Often associated with manic episodes or schizophrenia. Edited March 23, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 (edited) Wow, nothing adds to the quality of a forum like Domino. Edited March 23, 2004 by gurgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.