Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo
- - - - -

The History of Life.


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 bishadi

bishadi

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9522 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 06:03 PM

Evolving from nature or by supernatural beginning?

 

ie..... do you use belief or common sense to set the record straight on the history of mankind?


  • 0

#2 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 30 January 2014 - 08:17 AM

Evolving from nature or by supernatural beginning?

 

ie..... do you use belief or common sense to set the record straight on the history of mankind?

According to various authorities on ancient Sumerian archaeology and history, notably Dr. Zacharia Sitchin, the human beings we are today were originally created by the Anunnaki as a race, or species, of gold mining slaves.  Strangely enough, when you read the history of the Anunniki, you realize that the story of Genesis and various other parts of the Bible, form an allegorical and metaphorical account of the history of the Anunniki on this planet.  If Sitchin is correct in his interpretation of the ancient Sumerian tablets he has studied, then we are the result of procedures and even experiments the Anunniki conducted in genetic science.  Not only did the Anunnaki create us, but they used their own DNA in the process, meaning we are part Anunniki.  So the question then becomes: "Do you accept that the Anunniki were supernatural beings?"  Can the word God, be supplanted by the word Anunniki?


Edited by Colombo, 06 February 2014 - 03:51 PM.

  • 0

#3 mataj

mataj

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4349 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:12 AM

Evolving from nature or by supernatural beginning?

 

ie..... do you use belief or common sense to set the record straight on the history of mankind?

 

Common sense says: Evolution.


  • 0

#4 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 07:56 PM

Empirical data can sometimes be less valid than academic theory, but at other times empirical data can be much more accurate than academic theory.

 

Evolution is an academic theory, supported by mountains of evidence from the history of evolving species, but it's still a theory, with no direct record of its origin.  The history of the Sumerian culture was recorded on pictographic tablets at the time it was taking place, or in real time if you prefer.  Evolution still plays a role in the development of humanity, and other species, but what is truly remarkable is that Sumerian history tells of the arrival of a race of beings from another planet, who created human beings as slaves.  The details of that history force one to realize that the biblical Genesis is like an allegorical version of Sumerian history.

 

So what I'm saying, Bishadi, is that the argument for common sense can be made for both the theory of evolution, and for the Sumerian creation theory.  It's really a matter of whether you choose to believe the Sumerian tablets or not.  It's purely a personal preference.


  • 0

#5 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 03:04 AM

a creation is not a evolution or a evolution is not a creation


  • 0

#6 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 10 February 2014 - 05:48 PM

a creation is not a evolution or a evolution is not a creation

 

Yes, but evolution is a theory of creation; a theory of how we came to be who and what we are today.  I'm not anti-evolution; not an evolution denier.  But the ancient pictograph tablets exist and, though his conclusions might be considered inconvenient for some, the late Zacharia Sitchin remains a recognised authority in that area.

 

It's interesting to consider that most of the world's pictographs and cuneiform tablets remain untranslated.  According to my old archaeology professor, this is because most archaeological digs are funded by religious groups seeking confirmation of their beliefs, so they tend to ignore things that don't confirm their scriptures.  Sitchin spent much of his life translating clay tablets from the Sumerian culture, and what he found was the story of the Anunnaki.  If some champions of evolutionary theory find Sitchin's discoveries distressing, I'm not surprised, but nor am I responsible for their discomfort.


  • 0

#7 Radio1

Radio1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5932 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 05:02 AM

According to various authorities on ancient Sumerian archaeology and history, notably Dr. Zacharia Sitchin, the human beings we are today were originally created by the Anunnaki as a race, or species, of gold mining slaves.  Strangely enough, when you read the history of the Anunniki, you realize that the story of Genesis and various other parts of the Bible, form an allegorical and metaphorical account of the history of the Anunniki on this planet.  If Sitchin is correct in his interpretation of the ancient Sumerian tablets he has studied, then we are the result of procedures and even experiments the Anunniki conducted in genetic science.  Not only did the Anunnaki create us, but they used their own DNA in the process, meaning we are part Anunniki.  So the question then becomes: "Do you accept that the Anunniki were supernatural beings?"  Can the word God, be supplanted by the word Anunniki?

There was nothing authoritative about Zacharia Sitchin. To believe the claims he made is to believe in what you want to believe in, not in what is supported by the facts.

 

Consider that any special creation of humankind, whether by a semitic deity or by alien beings called Anunaki, would leave behind evidence above and beyond the alleged claims of one ancient civilization. Humans are quite clearly primates, and evolution is quite clearly a real working process that affects all life on this planet, humans included. Humans are also demonstrably far older as a species or a set of subspecies, depending on how far back you want to go, than even the Sumerian civilization.


  • 0

#8 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 07:18 AM

 

Yes, but evolution is a theory of creation; a theory of how we came to be who and what we are today.  I'm not anti-evolution; not an evolution denier.  But the ancient pictograph tablets exist and, though his conclusions might be considered inconvenient for some, the late Zacharia Sitchin remains a recognised authority in that area.

 

It's interesting to consider that most of the world's pictographs and cuneiform tablets remain untranslated.  According to my old archaeology professor, this is because most archaeological digs are funded by religious groups seeking confirmation of their beliefs, so they tend to ignore things that don't confirm their scriptures.  Sitchin spent much of his life translating clay tablets from the Sumerian culture, and what he found was the story of the Anunnaki.  If some champions of evolutionary theory find Sitchin's discoveries distressing, I'm not surprised, but nor am I responsible for their discomfort.

and turn the World into Chaos "fanatics and addicts never should reproduce"

 

may you know this book

 

THE DREAM CULTURE OF THE NEANDERTHALS
Guardians of the Ancient Wisdom

by Stan Gooch


Edited by Hansel, 11 February 2014 - 07:19 AM.

  • 0

#9 mataj

mataj

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4349 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 09:26 AM

 

Yes, but evolution is a theory of creation;

 

Indeed. Think for a moment, how things are created or invented. You take known solutions, combine them together, tinker a little, and evaluate. If new solution is better you keep it, otherwise you discard it. Then you combine and tinker some more, evaluate, if it's better keep, otherwise discard. And so on. Exactly like evolution.

 

The above process is also emulated in computers, for problem solving. The most simple variant, tinkering and evaluation only, is called "Monte Carlo Algorithm". More sophisticated variants, which also include emulation of mating, are called "Genetic Algorithms". They work surprisingly well.

 

To start the evolution, one molecule capable of self-replication is enough. One relatively simple molecule in entire ocean, in entire universe. Once it starts replicating, it soon fills the entire ocean. It's like ocean full of tiny computers, each calculating Monte Carlo Algorithm for millions and billions of years. Complex and sophisticated results are inevitable, and explainable. No divine intervention necessary.

 

 

 religious groups 

 

If there is no Creator(s), you owe your gratitude for your existence to nobody. This is the essence of the conflict between religion and evolution. It's a political thing.


  • 0

#10 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 11 February 2014 - 06:02 PM

There was nothing authoritative about Zacharia Sitchin. To believe the claims he made is to believe in what you want to believe in, not in what is supported by the facts.

 

Consider that any special creation of humankind, whether by a semitic deity or by alien beings called Anunaki, would leave behind evidence above and beyond the alleged claims of one ancient civilization. Humans are quite clearly primates, and evolution is quite clearly a real working process that affects all life on this planet, humans included. Humans are also demonstrably far older as a species or a set of subspecies, depending on how far back you want to go, than even the Sumerian civilization.

 

Of course, Sitchin's work has been studied, dissected and attacked by many, but I don't think there is any dispute over whether he actually translated the Sumerian tablets.  Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of his translations, but his work remains the most extensive on the subject and it was work that he was fully qualified to conduct.  So I don't understand why you say he was not authoritative.  Is there some other archaeologist I'm unaware of, who has studied the tablets and produced another translation different from Sitchin's.

 

As I said before, I am not an evolution denier.  I'm perfectly willing to consider any cogent argument against Sitchin's claims, but if his claims are not proved wrong, then the involvement of the Anunniki (sp?) is simply part of our own evolutionary story.  Sitchin's findings obviously didn't please everyone.  Academics guard their theories, and he was challenging many well guarded academic theories.  But when you strip away all the emotions, establishment doctrines and fanatical arguments, Sitchin's work remains the most extensive on this subject, and that's why I call him a recognized authority.  You have said he was not authoritative, and I know you are not alone in that position, but I am asking that you show us a serious challenge to his archaeological science.

 

I should add that for me, evolution and Biblical creationism are not in conflict.  Presumably, humanity was evolving before the Anunniki arrived and continued to evolve after their visit right up to this day, and it is astonishing to realise that the events of Anunniki history appear to be the origin of the Biblical Genesis story.  The Biblical creation theory is then seen as an allegorical and metaphorical version of the Anunniki story.  I know that's controversial, but I can point to Sitchin's work conducted using scientific methodology, to support my position.  If we are to reject his work as flawed, then we really need to challenge it using scientific method, not simply dismiss Sitchin without offering any scientific data to justify that dismissal.  After all, he used scientific discipline to make his claims, so it is incumbent upon us to show the same academic discipline in rejecting his findings.

 

As for the timeline, different texts give different dates for the Anunniki arrival.  I've seen it represented as an event that took place about 4,000 years ago (2,000 years before Christ), and I've read other papers that suggest it took place as much as 24,000 years ago.


Edited by Colombo, 11 February 2014 - 06:08 PM.

  • 0

#11 Radio1

Radio1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5932 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 06:34 AM

 

Of course, Sitchin's work has been studied, dissected and attacked by many, but I don't think there is any dispute over whether he actually translated the Sumerian tablets.  Some scholars have questioned the accuracy of his translations, but his work remains the most extensive on the subject and it was work that he was fully qualified to conduct.  So I don't understand why you say he was not authoritative.  Is there some other archaeologist I'm unaware of, who has studied the tablets and produced another translation different from Sitchin's.

 

As I said before, I am not an evolution denier.  I'm perfectly willing to consider any cogent argument against Sitchin's claims, but if his claims are not proved wrong, then the involvement of the Anunniki (sp?) is simply part of our own evolutionary story.  Sitchin's findings obviously didn't please everyone.  Academics guard their theories, and he was challenging many well guarded academic theories.  But when you strip away all the emotions, establishment doctrines and fanatical arguments, Sitchin's work remains the most extensive on this subject, and that's why I call him a recognized authority.  You have said he was not authoritative, and I know you are not alone in that position, but I am asking that you show us a serious challenge to his archaeological science.

 

I should add that for me, evolution and Biblical creationism are not in conflict.  Presumably, humanity was evolving before the Anunniki arrived and continued to evolve after their visit right up to this day, and it is astonishing to realise that the events of Anunniki history appear to be the origin of the Biblical Genesis story.  The Biblical creation theory is then seen as an allegorical and metaphorical version of the Anunniki story.  I know that's controversial, but I can point to Sitchin's work conducted using scientific methodology, to support my position.  If we are to reject his work as flawed, then we really need to challenge it using scientific method, not simply dismiss Sitchin without offering any scientific data to justify that dismissal.  After all, he used scientific discipline to make his claims, so it is incumbent upon us to show the same academic discipline in rejecting his findings.

 

As for the timeline, different texts give different dates for the Anunniki arrival.  I've seen it represented as an event that took place about 4,000 years ago (2,000 years before Christ), and I've read other papers that suggest it took place as much as 24,000 years ago.

I'm perfectly willing to consider any cogent argument against Sitchin's claims, but if his claims are not proved wrong, then the involvement of the Anunniki (sp?) is simply part of our own evolutionary story.

 

This is too open an approach to the claims made. It was up to Sitchin to sufficiently prove his claims. It is not up to anyone else to disprove them when his claims are already heavily disputed, fantastic in nature and lacking in substance.

 

I know that's controversial, but I can point to Sitchin's work conducted using scientific methodology, to support my position.

 

Clearly Sitchen failed to use proper scientific methodology, or else his claims would have found wider acceptance. Again, it was his job to provide sufficient supporting evidence for his claims, which he clearly failed to do. It is not sufficient to make a logical-sounding argument and expect others to disprove it. That is the very opposite of the scientific method.


  • 0

#12 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 04:09 PM

I'm perfectly willing to consider any cogent argument against Sitchin's claims, but if his claims are not proved wrong, then the involvement of the Anunniki (sp?) is simply part of our own evolutionary story.

 

This is too open an approach to the claims made. It was up to Sitchin to sufficiently prove his claims. It is not up to anyone else to disprove them when his claims are already heavily disputed, fantastic in nature and lacking in substance.

 

I know that's controversial, but I can point to Sitchin's work conducted using scientific methodology, to support my position.

 

Clearly Sitchen failed to use proper scientific methodology, or else his claims would have found wider acceptance. Again, it was his job to provide sufficient supporting evidence for his claims, which he clearly failed to do. It is not sufficient to make a logical-sounding argument and expect others to disprove it. That is the very opposite of the scientific method.

 

Zacharia Sitchin is long dead, yet his books still sell vigorously, I would call that the "wider acceptance" you feel is so important, though it is not that important to me.  It's easy to claim that a dead scientist abandoned scientific methods to reach his conclusions, but unfortunately it's even easier for 'God botherers' to trash a scientist's work based on religious doctrines.  It's easy to do that while the scientist is alive to defend his work, but obviously even easier if the scientist is dead.  I doubt very much whether Sitchin ever denied the basics of evolutionary theory, and I'm almost as doubtful that he was on a mission to trash anyone's religious faith.  But as I said before, churches are a primary source of funding for archaeological digs, because they seek material confirmation of their beliefs.  This means that if the archaeological evidence doesn't support some preacher's personal interpretation of the commonly accepted interpretations of selected scriptures, the archaeologist who revealed the evidence will likely be subjected to a campaign of character assassination, organised by the offended preacher or his entire church.  Surely you are not saying that is the kind of scientific method you endorse.

 

In short, Desther, you are quick to dismiss Sitchin's work as flawed, leading to false conclusions, but you have presented no evidence to support your position.  I do accept your argument, however, that Sitchin's work is heavily disputed and fantastic in nature, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.


Edited by Colombo, 13 February 2014 - 04:29 PM.

  • 0

#13 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 02 March 2014 - 10:31 PM

Wow!  I've been having that problem above with these forums of late.  In the above instance I was reading a post I made some days ago, and found a minor grammatical imperfection, so I clicked the EDIT button and, voila!  No more post to edit. Yet, whenever I have tried to delete an entire post, I have found it impossible to do.


  • 0

#14 vladzo

vladzo

    Registered User

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 16824 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 01:39 AM

Evolving from nature or by supernatural beginning?

 

ie..... do you use belief or common sense to set the record straight on the history of mankind?

 

? what do you mean by "super natural"?

 

if all that there is was created by the great creator, then creation is nature and nature is creation.

and most of all; creation is creation. there is no super creation, just larger and smaller.

therefore there is also no super natural.

 

LIFE WAS CREATED BY THE GREAT CREATOR THRU THE PROCESS WHICH WE CALL EVOLUTION.

 

vlad


  • 0

#15 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 05:10 AM

 

? what do you mean by "super natural"?

 

if all that there is was created by the great creator, then creation is nature and nature is creation.

and most of all; creation is creation. there is no super creation, just larger and smaller.

therefore there is also no super natural.

 

LIFE WAS CREATED BY THE GREAT CREATOR THRU THE PROCESS WHICH WE CALL EVOLUTION.

 

vlad

I'm not denying that God created everything, but the history of the Annunaki may help us to understand who God is.  As I've said before, the Book of Genesis is like a metaphorical version of Annunaki history.  But of course, if the Annunaki created humans, we must still ask who or what created the Annunaki?  There's really no rational way to remove a supreme being, or supreme power, from the whole debate over creation.

 

However, as any aquarist can confirm, when you place a living creature in an environment you have created and that you maintain, in a sense you become that creature's god.  But that doesn't mean you become the power we know as God.  Evolution was taking place before the Annunaki arrived and it has continued to this day.  Religion has also been with us for thousands of years and offers yet another version of the creation story.  For me, the striking similarities in all the creation stories, are more important than their differences.  The arrival of the Annunaki was just another stage in human evolution; a period in which we took a big leap forward.  That temporary boost in  the evolutionary process, was later recorded in various scriptures as an act of creation by a godhead.  But it's a theory, that's all.  The story of the Annunaki is simply not that well known or accepted and, unless and until it is accepted as fact, it will remain a controversial theory especially among the religious faithful.


  • 0

#16 ??!!??

??!!??

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 09 March 2014 - 12:57 AM

Annunakis; Deities

The Annunaki are mentioned in The Epic of Gilgamesh when Utnapishtim tells the story of the flood. The seven judges of hell are called the Annunaki, and they set the land aflame as the storm is approaching

The are only 5 judges of hell and 7 judges of heaven controlled by King and Queen or say ying yang, Only the King has the power to go to each level .

It is my hobby; energy in the 5th dimension


  • 0

#17 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:44 AM

Sometimes theories don't really rate being called theories at all.  They are just idle thoughts that could, perhaps, become theories.  For example, if Sitchin's translations are correct, the Annunaki fashioned us partly with their own DNA.  Given the striking similarities between Annunaki history and the Bible (esp. Old Testament), I can't help wondering if the "chosen ones" were chosen by the Annunaki for some special purpose; maybe chosen to carry Annunaki bloodlines forward in human history. 


  • 0

#18 JamesTQuirk

JamesTQuirk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:00 PM

Or the "Annunaki" was the con job story they used to hold power to get their slaves to mine more gold ? Maybe the translation is wrong, a little .....

 

Jesus, like others, was a real live human being, who got nailed to stick for saying" lets co-operate & play nice", that got twisted into a Business/state consortium that has been running 2000 years in christianities respect, longer for others ....

 

Evolution is fact, it has a paleoachealogical support, Genetics, and long term study, it continues today, or goes in reverse from some posts I have read, but religion is a theory based on faith, no fact involved, people can blame "god" for taking or giving anything, its usually just cover for their greed ...

 

God Types should take responsbilty for thier actions, and not leave it to a higher power to take the blame ...

 

Anyone who thinks there is life after death is just hoping, once is enough for me, I am pretty sure Kalishkov would have a bigger warranty department, if they got up after you shot them dead ...

 

God is the excuse for insane actions in this world ....

 

A ancient Chinese Curse " May you be born in interesting times" .....


  • 0

#19 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:44 PM

The Annunaki story gets short shrift from God botherers because it redefines some of their most deeply held beliefs about the Biblical Genesis.  What is most annoying, is that the Annunaki story actually supports the Biblical Genesis story, but it doesn't support everyone's personal interpretation of that story.  So those who are the quickest to trash Annunaki history are actually attacking a theory that supports or adds credibility to their Biblical Genesis story.  But it is also possible that we have interpreted the Bible incorrectly, and the story of our origin with the Annunaki may put the truth back into the Bible for us.  It's just hard to get some people to even consider such a thing.


  • 0

#20 bishadi

bishadi

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9522 posts

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:27 PM

? what do you mean by "super natural"?
 
if all that there is was created by the great creator, then creation is nature and nature is creation.
and most of all; creation is creation. there is no super creation, just larger and smaller.
therefore there is also no super natural.
 
LIFE WAS CREATED BY THE GREAT CREATOR THRU THE PROCESS WHICH WE CALL EVOLUTION.
 
vlad

I can't help to say, WOW, that was pretty darn good. I just wrote, a comment less than 5 minutes ago about how bad your integrity is, and then you write something that good.

I love to evolve and watching evolution in process.

Nature is g-d itself, and mankind was born within the beginning and ending (within the alpha/omega).

It's actually kind of 'stupid easy' but once the concept of 'leaving the garden' began in the west, it has practically ruined the educational aspect of the comprehension. ie... some people actually believe that they have a spirit that goes some place when they pass.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru