Another fossil discovery confirms Biblical account. (Biblically, Old Testament, Hebrew, Universe)
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.
I'm not disputing the myths that ancient peoples believed, but do you believe that this Sumner reptilian alien was myth or fact? I suspect you think it's fact judging from your other posts.
I honestly don't know whether it is fact or not and quite frankly, who cares? The fact is that this creature has its origins in Sumer. Much of the OT has its origins in Sumer.
Now, I do have a hypothesis as to where this creature is now if it is a real creature. Unfortunately, that hypothesis is where you and I don't agree so let's drop it. You believe that mainstream science is being completely honest with us (I don't). Let's agree to disagree and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
[/color]
I think the issue is this statement. Not the origins of the walking talking snake mythos. Snake like beings and alien encounters?
Fonzie is revving his engine again I can hear it!
Simply put, some of us believe that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials; some of us don't. Some of us are correct; some of us are incorrect. In time, the believers of this phenomenon will be proven correct unambiguously by the extraterrestrials leaving hard evidence that can not be denied. This much is inevitable. Until then, I accept my role as the ridiculed individual in society; for I know a truth that is simply ahead of its time.
Furthermore, knowing this truth doesn't make me "better" than those that don't (it just makes me the butt of their jokes).
With that said, do you wish to know what I know; or would you rather just laugh and learn nothing? If you are truly interested in learning something, post #436 on the following thread is a good place to start.
So, I'm guessing you're not familiar with ancient Sumer and the culture's popular depiction of the reptilian God
There were no gods in Sumer. If your information isn't coming from the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Texts, American Journal of Semitic Languages, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Journal of Cuneiform Texts or the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, then whatever your reading about is corrupted, false and erroneous and based largely on conjecture and speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte
Whether this "reptilian God" is real or not isn't the issue. The issue here is that C-34's upright walking-talking snake comes from THIS culture. I posted picture evidence of this fact. Therefore, this thread about 100 million year old snake fossils is moot. The snake fossils has NOTHING to do with the snake-man of the OT.
There are statues of bears in other cultures, so now what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I'm not disputing the myths that ancient peoples believed, but do you believe that this Sumner reptilian alien was myth or fact?
It was neither. Sometimes a statue is just a statue.
I honestly don't know whether it is fact or not and quite frankly, who cares? The fact is that this creature has its origins in Sumer. Much of the OT has its origins in Sumer.
Now, I do have a hypothesis as to where this creature is now if it is a real creature. Unfortunately, that hypothesis is where you and I don't agree so let's drop it. You believe that mainstream science is being completely honest with us (I don't). Let's agree to disagree and move on.
Simply put, some of us believe that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials; some of us don't. Some of us are correct; some of us are incorrect. In time, the believers of this phenomenon will be proven correct unambiguously by the extraterrestrials leaving hard evidence that can not be denied. This much is inevitable. Until then, I accept my role as the ridiculed individual in society; for I know a truth that is simply ahead of its time.
Furthermore, knowing this truth doesn't make me "better" than those that don't (it just makes me the butt of their jokes).
With that said, do you wish to know what I know; or would you rather just laugh and learn nothing? If you are truly interested in learning something, post #436 on the following thread is a good place to start.
Don't get me wrong I do believe that there HAS TO BE life elsewhere in the universe. Do I think we have been visited or are being visited by ET? NO! Other than proof I also need the why and the how. Will it happen one day? I think so. But when it does everyone will know. I will say that I find alien visitation far more plausible than the idea of God.
You are correct. The Annunaki were not Gods. I'll stop there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
Don't get me wrong I do believe that there HAS TO BE life elsewhere in the universe. Do I think we have been visited or are being visited by ET? NO! Other than proof I also need the why and the how.
Then you should really do some research on this topic. The "why" and "how" has been answered by many researchers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
Will it happen one day? I think so. But when it does everyone will know. I will say that I find alien visitation far more plausible than the idea of God.
What if I told you that ancient alien visitors were thought to be "Gods" and "angels"? The evidence of this is quite compelling. Anyways, I'm with you. The idea of a God is pretty bogus IMO.
And a fossil is just a fossil. There is not proof it backs up the bible. It is a piece of rock with an imprint of a lizard like creature.
If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
Well stated, JM. Excellent and obvious points. This particular OP is and always has been but a pointless proclamation of the author's essentially faith-based but technically uncritical assumptions. He gloms onto any and every implausible hint that he feels supports his own personal version of a literal bible. He then assures us that the greater "science" he loves to hate fully supports his position. Oddly, he then selectivelydenies parts of their commentaries, weeding out those he doesn't like as "assumptive". Wow! How convenient, but unconvincing.
As well, he has a near-pathological (and fully admitted-to, BTW...) lack of any technical knowledge on the subjects discussed in these fora. Even his understanding of his own supposed area of knowledge: the bible's story, has been shown to be highly suspect; he reads into that ancient fable as well.
Quite the combo punch, huh? Lack of technical knowledge coupled with fantasy assumptions. Impressive.
Unfortunately, the real evidence at hand, in incontrovertible, fully corroborated and documented studies, completely rebukes his thoughtless fantasy versions. The appearance of an ancient fossil that demonstrates unique evolutionary properties, within a geological structure of previously well-established age, certainly does nothing to support some qwack assumption that this, therefore proves the literacy of the bible, via a talking snake fairy-tale..
In fact, Tom's link rather conclusively denies the bible's version.
I honestly don't know whether it is fact or not and quite frankly, who cares? The fact is that this creature has its origins in Sumer. Much of the OT has its origins in Sumer.
Now, I do have a hypothesis as to where this creature is now if it is a real creature. Unfortunately, that hypothesis is where you and I don't agree so let's drop it. You believe that mainstream science is being completely honest with us (I don't). Let's agree to disagree and move on.
Simply put, some of us believe that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials; some of us don't. Some of us are correct; some of us are incorrect. In time, the believers of this phenomenon will be proven correct unambiguously by the extraterrestrials leaving hard evidence that can not be denied. This much is inevitable. Until then, I accept my role as the ridiculed individual in society; for I know a truth that is simply ahead of its time.
Furthermore, knowing this truth doesn't make me "better" than those that don't (it just makes me the butt of their jokes).
With that said, do you wish to know what I know; or would you rather just laugh and learn nothing? If you are truly interested in learning something, post #436 on the following thread is a good place to start.
Really...Nothing for me to learn there. I already know what you THINK you know.
Then let's talk about what we do agree on. An 100 million year old snake did NOT tempt the first humans with fruit. To suggest such a thing is beyond ridiculous.
I listened to a seemingly unrelated news story this morning on NPR and then it clicked: they were discussing an ancient Hindi dance form that has been thoroughly and accurately documented and practiced for... wait for it.... 5000+ years.
Prior to this written documentation, they practiced a rich oral communication culture, and the dance form covers much of their rich cultural history. All of it in operation while the biblical ME desert dwellers were suffering hysterical hallucinations about the birth of the universe.
They didn't mention any walking-talking snakes, any world-wide 18 month-long fully inundating flood a mere 2500 years ago, nor their familial obligations to a fairy-tale Noah's family, especially since his little joy ride in an overcrowded and unpowered barge occurred some 2500 to 3000 years after the Hindus had a fully operational and documented artistic culture. Not a single dance-story about these minor events. How odd, huh?
This little fact will, of course, be selectively denied by Tom. Just watch.
And a fossil is just a fossil. There is not proof it backs up the bible. It is a piece of rock with an imprint of a lizard like creature. I am listing some other fossils found that seem to be snakes with legs. They are also dated around 90 to 97 million years of age. These fossils do show an evolutionary process.
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Ancient serpent shows its leg
What was lost tens of millions of years ago is now found.
A fossil animal locked in Lebanese limestone has been shown to be an extremely precious discovery - a snake with two legs.
Scientists have only a handful of specimens that illustrate the evolutionary narrative that goes from ancient lizard to limbless modern serpent.
Oldest snake fossil shows a bit of leg - life - 19 April 2006 - New Scientist
The fossil was found in a deposit from the late Cretaceous period and Zaher says the snake is at least 90 million years old. "This fills an important morphological gap of information regarding the early evolution of snakes," he says.
Fossil snake sheds light on snake origins (http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/snake.html - broken link)
Fossil snake sheds light on snake origins
Jeff Poling
The discovery of a new fossil snake may shed light on the poorly known evolution and ancestry of snakes, paleontologists announced April 16, 1997.
The scientists stated that the 97 ma old lizard fossil, discovered in Israel, may be one of the earliest snakes ever found. They also stated that the fossil provided "surprising and compelling" evidence that the nearest relatives to snakes were mosasaurs. Mosasaurs were giant marine lizards that became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, and are thought to be closely related to modern varanid lizards such as the Komodo Dragon.
The fossil, named Pachyrhachis problematicus, was examined by Michael Caldwell of the Field Museum in Chicago and Michael Lee of the University of Sydney. The specimen was originally identified as a lizard, but Caldwell and Lee decided it looked more like a snake that still had tiny hind legs.
Some modern boa snakes still have vestigial legs, and other anatomical features of the fossil indicated it was a snake and not a lizard. The scientists stated that "Pachyrhachis has a small, narrow, lightly-built skull showing most [of the] derived features of modern snakes."
The scientists also believe certain anatomical characteristics show strong resemblances to those of marine mosasaurids, which they said could be, among lizards, the "nearest relatives of snakes."
SMU Paleontologists Publish Findings Of Fossil Snake With Legs
The fossil snake, which lived 95 million years ago, is named Haasiophis terrasanctus after a Hebrew University professor named George Haas who obtained it from quarry workers more than 20 years ago. The well-preserved fossil sat largely unstudied in storage until Mike Polcyn, an SMU graduate student in paleontology, brought back pictures of it and other undescribed specimens that he took while on a business trip to Israel in 1996.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience) There is a whole article of interest. Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods Michael Benton
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
Millions of fossils have been discovered.
They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
Well if a fossil is just a fossil. How is it now you are saying a fossil is showing us an evolutionary link? It appears a fossil is more then just a fossil to you. And that is why you are pushing the evolutionary link. Of course, a fossil is just a fossil to you if it helps support the Biblical account. Then I guess they have less value.
And what proof can you offer that these fossils are really 90 million years old? I see people throwing out numbers like this all the time. Yet you know such numbers are based on assumptions only. Why do you keep suggesting they are facts? And your ministry of truth, suggesting they have the inside track on accurate fossil time is more of a joke then real science. Their numbers have been all over the charts, and they only agree on one. When it suits their fancy. I could do better by spinning the bottle.
Your belief that the fossil record is fundamental to understanding evolution, was a belief that has been dismissed by Henry Gee who is the Senior Editor of Nature. You see your living in the past, and still believe the errors of the past. Gee will tell you, those who try to arrange fossils in sequence that purports to tell a story about how evolution occurred. Are basically those who pratice unscientific methods. So when you say the fossil record is fundamental to understanding evolution. You are still holding on to old past beliefs. Yet these beliefs are now being refuted by your own people.
The Bible tells us that snakes did not always crawl on their belly. The fossil find only helps to confirm that belief. And the first Book of the Scriptures told us this 3,000 years ago. Science has only come to that understanding in recent years.
Last edited by Campbell34; 11-30-2010 at 02:50 AM..
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.
The Tommo Chronicles. A great Sci-Fi Story.
