Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you. With your backtracking you have made clear you cannot and will not even attempt to produce any cite(s) backing up what you claimed. And you did indeed claim it.
Where? You offered the entire epic. That is not a cite and you know it. It's akin to making a specific biblical claim and linking to the entire New Testament and saying, "It's right there. Read it!". How sadly evasive and dishonest of you. Nor do I expect you will do so. In fact, I know full well that you will refuse to provide a cite, and proceed to blame me for asking you to back up your claim.
And what's even more weird is after backing off your claim in your first paragraph, you double-down on it in your second paragraph. Unfortunately, your statements are now self-contradictory, in addition to being evasive and deceitful.
I will leave the last word to you. And I applaud your ability to post without name-calling. Kudos to you! Perhaps if you try really hard, you can do it again...
Thank you for your time and consideration ... Peace.
Back to Darwin....As disbelief later gradually crept over Darwin, he could "hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Charles Darwin's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks you. Could have looked that up myself, but I'm a bit busy.
"Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,[10][11] and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated,[12] and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters.[7] Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church." (Wiki)
He had given up on organized religion and the Christian claims but still thought God was behind nature. A Deist, in fact. His studies must have made him wonder what sort of just God could arrange nature as it was (the Ichneumon fly is specifically mentioned) It was the death of his daughter that finally caused him to give up any kind of god - belief.
Okay, i see, i'm dealing with rhetorical naysayers right? Never mind beloved children, enjoy your everlasting gob(d?)stoppers ...
Yes, that was to be expected.
(1) a Big Hint that the sumerians somehow knew all about genetics (hold Von Daniken's Gods from outer space whackiness)
(2) Asked for evidence, link to Epic of Gilgamesh (which we Noah - debunkers all know of)
(3) asked to explain just where in this old myth there is evidence of knowledge of genetics, resort to sneers about 'Rhetorical naysayers', and unworthy accusations of childishness.
Do we need to spend any further time on this wally? He evidently has nothing worthwhile to offer.
(1) a Big Hint that the sumerians somehow knew all about genetics (hold Von Daniken's Gods from outer space whackiness)
(2) Asked for evidence, link to Epic of Gilgamesh (which we Noah - debunkers all know of)
(3) asked to explain just where in this old myth there is evidence of knowledge of genetics, resort to sneers about 'Rhetorical naysayers', and unworthy accusations of childishness.
Do we need to spend any further time on this wally? He evidently has nothing worthwhile to offer.
No you don't, i see that you have already reached your own conclusions. I just wanted to put in my two cents worth, even if you do not account them the same value as i do. Still, altogether disregarding the claimed reference to genetic manipulation by the ancients; the fact that we can do it now still gives rise to the question of whether or not it was done by some other civilization in the past.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 08-19-2011 at 04:08 AM..
All we have asked you for is some good reason to postulate that this ever happened. That is perfectly reasonable. If you can't, then we have to regard it as yet another of the amusing but utterly unsupported theories we regularly get presented to us as Fact.
This is only to give you a chance to redeem yourself. We couldn't care less what you think of us rationalists. Your utter lack of evidence (so far) is plain to be seen by everyone.
All we have asked you for is some good reason to postulate that this ever happened. That is perfectly reasonable. If you can't, then we have to regard it as yet another of the amusing but utterly unsupported theories we regularly get presented to us as Fact.
This is only to give you a chance to redeem yourself. We couldn't care less what you think of us rationalists. Your utter lack of evidence (so far) is plain to be seen by everyone.
The best reason to postulate that this ever happened is the fact that we could and likely would do it if we were presented with the same opportunity. I think the evidences actually are in favor of ancient civilizations with superior technology to our own. The fact that so many different ancient cultures had sacred texts that read like high science fiction and which are mostly completely feasible in our own times is evidence of this in my opinion, not to mention the aforementioned monolithic structures found around the world.
In my opinion, people who believe that we are at the height of human civilization, much less cosmic civilization(in the likelihood of other worldly civilizations), are very arrogant to say the least.
I agree and I would personally be charmed by the ideas of previous civilizations - even high technology civilizations - whether or not imported from outer space or home - grown sea -king empires. And it would be on - topic, too.
But the fact is that there is no good evidence for it. It ranges from over - interpreted mythology, misinterpreted evidence, hoax, sometimes and unexplained questions which simply remain unexplained. I am interested as I am in UFO's and will always be happy to see new evidence and I think it would be relevant here.
I agree and I would personally be charmed by the ideas of previous civilizations - even high technology civilizations - whether or not imported from outer space or home - grown sea -king empires. And it would be on - topic, too.
But the fact is that there is no good evidence for it. It ranges from over - interpreted mythology, misinterpreted evidence, hoax, sometimes and unexplained questions which simply remain unexplained. I am interested as I am in UFO's and will always be happy to see new evidence and I think it would be relevant here.
No. I have seen meteors, fireballs, bright stars and planets, moonlight reflected off an aerial, chinese lanterns and all manner of aircraft lights. I have seen stars and planets often and regularly, but never a glimpse of a UFO, much less an alien - piloted craft.
P.s Hellfire! We are off topic. I thought we were in 'how old do you think the earth is?' And even then, UFO's are a passing mention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
