PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else familiar with the work of Zecharia Sitchin?



ravens_creed
07-01-2011, 05:28 PM
I'm a big fan of his work and his theories.

*censored*
07-07-2011, 05:27 PM
Sitchin's work is awesome. Well-researched and entertaining.

duane1969
07-07-2011, 06:46 PM
His ideas seem as logical to me as being created out of thin air or being descended from apes :confused0024:

gatorboymike
07-07-2011, 10:17 PM
His ideas seem as logical to me as being created out of thin air or being descended from apes :confused0024:

And you wonder why you get unflattering labels thrown at you. I think you need to...what did you say? "Educate yourself on the subject."

So, this individual believes alien archaeologists genetically engineered humankind? And said aliens were actually some of the supernatural beings alluded to in the Bible? Hoo dogey. I've watched religious apologists contort the Bible into M.C. Escher shapes to make it conform with scientific observations, but this idea just blows my mind.

And he believes in the secret doomsday planet that will supposedly impact the Earth in 2012? The one that every astronomical organization and amateur astronomer in the world are conspiring to hide from the general populace? I laugh derisively.

If anyone actually takes these ideas seriously, I'm compelled to put the same demand to them as I am to those who believe in religious creationism: show me your evidence.

duane1969
07-08-2011, 02:59 AM
And you wonder why you get unflattering labels thrown at you. I think you need to...what did you say? "Educate yourself on the subject."



Where did I say that?

gatorboymike
07-08-2011, 03:47 AM
Where did I say that?

"It is insulting to call someone something with intention of being demeaning. Saying someone needs to be educated on a subject and calling someone uneducated are two entirely different things."
- You, page 17 of the "Republican candidates LOLZ quote thread"

And if you can say what you said in your first post in this thread, you need to be educated about science.

duane1969
07-08-2011, 11:52 AM
"It is insulting to call someone something with intention of being demeaning. Saying someone needs to be educated on a subject and calling someone uneducated are two entirely different things."
- You, page 17 of the "Republican candidates LOLZ quote thread"

And if you can say what you said in your first post in this thread, you need to be educated about science.

OK, thanks for taking that out of context. Actually, you took both things out of context, but you do that a lot when reading my comments.

You can tell someone that they need to get more educated on a subject and it not be presented in a rude or insulting manner. For example, someone who repeatedly uses inappropriate language on this site should probably get educated on the rules about language. See? That wasn't rude or insulting at all.

In contrast, if someone says something like...


I think you need to...what did you say? "Educate yourself on the subject."

See? There is clear intent to be rude and confrontational in that sentence. It is not the words that are spoken but the intent behind them.

Also, I was not attacking science as you assumed, nor am I uneducated about science. What I said was "His ideas seem as logical to me as being created out of thin air (Creationism) or being descended from apes (Evolution)." I was stating that the other widely accepted theories are no more deserving.

In your eagerness to find something to come after me on you didn't even bother to read and understand my statement.

Star_Cards
07-08-2011, 12:09 PM
"It is insulting to call someone something with intention of being demeaning. Saying someone needs to be educated on a subject and calling someone uneducated are two entirely different things."
- You, page 17 of the "Republican candidates LOLZ quote thread"

And if you can say what you said in your first post in this thread, you need to be educated about science.

OH SNAP!!!

I've never heard of this guy and am not really sure about his ideal outside of what gator posted. If this is in fact what he believes I'd say it's no less plausible than creationism.

Star_Cards
07-08-2011, 12:22 PM
just checked out his wiki page for a bit. Sounds like his writings would make a pretty good movie trilogy, but as far as an explanation to why we are here, I'll put it in the lower part of the list of how i think we came to be.

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 12:41 PM
or being descended from apes (Evolution

Perhaps his comment to "educate yourself" centered on this statement. Evolution DOES NOT say we are descended from apes!

duane1969
07-08-2011, 01:57 PM
Perhaps his comment to "educate yourself" centered on this statement. Evolution DOES NOT say we are descended from apes!

Yes, I know. The new definition of evolution is not the "we came from monkeys" version. Now we share a common ancestor but are not direct descendants. A shiny new paint job on an old concept IMO.

However, when I was a kid in school and evolution time came around, I remember a long graphed timeline showing how man evolved from apes being the central teaching tool. So I am not off-base at all.

gatorboymike
07-08-2011, 04:03 PM
Yes, I know. The new definition of evolution is not the "we came from monkeys" version. Now we share a common ancestor but are not direct descendants. A shiny new paint job on an old concept IMO.

However, when I was a kid in school and evolution time came around, I remember a long graphed timeline showing how man evolved from apes being the central teaching tool. So I am not off-base at all.

Maybe you weren't aware of this, but science, unlike religion, learns and grows with time. You might not be off-base, but you're definitely out of date. Trying to equate scientific theory (evolution) with baseless religious hokum (creationism) proves that you are either very ignorant on that topic, or are knowingly and intentionally spreading misinformation.

When I was in elementary school, they were still teaching continental drift theory. By the time I got to high school, they'd discounted that in favor of plate tectonics. If I were to do as you just did, I would say "Plate tectonics? Hah, that's just continental drift with a pretty new bow wrapped around it. I don't have to listen to any of this, because it's exactly, precisely, 100% as likely as a magickal being vomiting up the continents in the exact shapes and positions they are in today, 6000 years ago, after an all-night ambrosia binge." Ironically, on the other side of the fence, so-called "intelligent design" actually IS creationism with a pretty new bow wrapped around it. In Religion Land, they don't actually learn anything new, they just play word games.

And, oh yes, if I'm not mistaken, you've claimed to be an agnostic. Or was that someone else? Just remind me if that was you. Because if you are, I find it interesting that you use the same arguments that well-known religious fraudsters Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort use when attacking science.

duane1969
07-08-2011, 05:19 PM
Your condescending mannerism makes virtually everything you type unreadable.

Just because I do not drink the evolution Kool-Aid does not mean that I am attacking science. Nice leap.

gatorboymike
07-08-2011, 06:11 PM
Your condescending mannerism makes virtually everything you type unreadable.

Just because I do not drink the evolution Kool-Aid does not mean that I am attacking science. Nice leap.

You just did attack science, Sunny Jim. Do you drink the creation Kool-Aid? Because the only people who use that language are science-hating, Biblical-literalist religious zealots.

Or are you one of those "I don't rule anything out!" agnostics? Because if you don't rule anything out, you don't rule anything IN, either.

Oh yes, and by the way, nice of you to attack other people for not reading what you say, then explicitly state that you refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Nice of you to call anyone else condescending when you never pass up the opportunity to say "Oh, you're just some wacko liberal and you need to be educated."

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 08:08 PM
Oh awesome, here comes the sunny jims.......

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 09:44 PM
Oh awesome, here comes the sunny jims.......

Since you an AUTaxMan are almost always on the same side of the argument maybe you should take some of his advice from a previous thread:

"Try attacking the message with a substantiated argument instead of the messenger for once."

I know it's a challenge but it shoud be entertaining to see you try.:sign0020:

gatorboymike
07-08-2011, 10:03 PM
Oh awesome, here comes the sunny jims.......

We can always count on you for a content-free response. Would you prefer "Happy Bob"?

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 10:27 PM
We can always count on you for a content-free response. Would you prefer "Happy Bob"?
And we always can count on you for....well being you. When you know what you are talking about, feel free to post. Otherwise.....

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 10:28 PM
Since you an AUTaxMan are almost always on the same side of the argument maybe you should take some of his advice from a previous thread:

"Try attacking the message with a substantiated argument instead of the messenger for once."

I know it's a challenge but it shoud be entertaining to see you try.:sign0020:
Don't make me take you out behind the woodshed like usual.....;)

*censored*
07-09-2011, 12:37 PM
100% as likely as a magickal being vomiting up the continents in the exact shapes and positions they are in today, 6000 years ago, after an all-night ambrosia binge."

I LOL'ed.

ravens_creed
07-13-2011, 11:30 PM
Man, what did I start here?! :smokin:

For what it's worth, his Wiki page is garbage, it doesn't do his theories any justice.

And call me crazy, but at the end of the day, I would bet my unborn kids that the basic premise of his theory is correct (that we were bio-engineered by an alien speicies known as the Annunaki (Nephilim in the Bible) (who made us in their image) using their own DNA and that of Cro-Magnon man who was already here. We were worker beings.

And as far as "planet x" is concerned, there is a great possibility that it is in fact a brown dwarf star, our sun's sister star (binary star systems are far more common than single star systems anyhow, it isn't that shocking), and due to its 3,600 year orbit (Pluto's is about 750 by comparison) we can't see it currently. It is interesting to note that in the approximate location where it is believed to be, ALL of the sky mapping websites (Wiki Sky, Google Sky, Microsoft World Wide Telescope) blatantly block it it out. Here: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/12180/Microsoft_Google__amp__WikiSky_Forced_To_Hide_Plan etX_/

As far as 2012 goes... nothing is going to happen, and it is false to believe that the end of the Mayan calendar was intended to signify the return of the planet at that date. In fact, Sitchin himself showed why this is in his most recent book. Sitchin would NOT promote the 2012 phenomenon. He does, however, show a history of how the date was arrived at, and why the calculation (the mathematics involved) are false. In essence, the wrong divider is used (365.25 is used - our calendar, when it should be 360 - the Mayan's own calendar), thus arriving at the year 2087, not 2012.

Anyhow, I just had to comment on a few of the things that have been said regarding Sitchin and his theories so far. As ludicrous as they may seem to some, appreciate that everyone is probably going to have to go through some sort of "shock" phase when encountering these ideas for the first time. I know I did. But, after the dust had settled, as it were, I was amazed at how his work seemed to answer just about every major mystery we have about ourselves and our planet. Open minds, people, open minds.

OnePimpTiger
07-13-2011, 11:57 PM
Oh awesome, here comes the sunny jims.......

I thought it was funny...I guess there are some of us who know hearing that means it's time to just start laughing...

sanfran22
07-14-2011, 10:41 AM
I thought it was funny...I guess there are some of us who know hearing that means it's time to just start laughing...
That's what I meant. It was sarcastic. lol

ensbergcollector
07-14-2011, 12:27 PM
Maybe you weren't aware of this, but science, unlike religion, learns and grows with time. .

i love how one of the arguments for science is that it learns and grows. So basically science can claim whatever it wants, until it finds out it was wrong, and then come up with a new theory. How exactly does that make science the most trust-worthy source?
Now, I openly admit I am a christian and thus believe in the words of the bible. I also completely understand why many people think it is ridiculous. I am not trying to argue religion vs. science here. I readily admit that belief in the bible requires more faith (or stupidity as GBM thinks) then belief in science. I am simply saying, for those who look 100% to science, how do years and years of "ok so we were wrong about that but we are right this time" lead to belief?

habsheaven
07-14-2011, 01:40 PM
Science cannot claim whatever it wants. Scientists present theories and other scientists test those theories and either advance them or reject them for something more plausible based on new data.

Religion claims whatever it wants, despite the scientific unlikelihood of it being possible. Despite this, religious leaders and followers do not question religion and blindly "believe".

The contrast makes it relatively easy to choose between what to believe and disbelieve.

Star_Cards
07-14-2011, 01:47 PM
science doesn't really claim whatever it wants.

Tivo32
07-14-2011, 01:51 PM
Religion claims whatever it wants, despite the scientific unlikelihood of it being possible. Despite this, religious leaders and followers do not question religion and blindly "believe".

I would hesitate to say religion claims whatever it wants. At least Christianity. I don't want to argue science vs. religion but I do want to attempt to dissuade the notion that Christianity does not grow. The beliefs (which do require faith) of Christianity were solidified by 7 different early Church councils. There were many people teaching whatever they wanted and calling it Christianity and these councils helped separate the truth from the false teachings. Even today, there are thousands of theologians and scholars who are studying both Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and early writings and archaeologists examining different sites around the world of the Ancient Near East in an attempt to better understand the Bible.

Does that make sense? I'm sorry if I worded it poorly.

Tivo32
07-14-2011, 01:55 PM
science doesn't really claim whatever it wants.

I think we also have to separate "accepted" science from "science" at large. I'm sure there are people all over the world who claim ridiculous notions in the name of science but no one accepts it because it's crazy.

I think there is a similar thing too with Christianity. You have people all over the world doing and saying downright stupid things in the name of Christianity and yet sometimes or most of the time it's a reflection on Christianity proper when most Christians would agree with how stupid it is. For an example, the dude who was claiming the end of the world earlier this summer and having people sell all their possessions or the dude who has a small church and wanted everyone to burn Korans. Or Westboro Baptist Church who pickets everywhere with the so called loving phrase of "God Hates Fags"

I think at the end of the day, in no matter what topic it is, it's really important to not judge the whole on the account of a few crazies.

habsheaven
07-14-2011, 01:57 PM
I would hesitate to say religion claims whatever it wants. At least Christianity. I don't want to argue science vs. religion but I do want to attempt to dissuade the notion that Christianity does not grow. The beliefs (which do require faith) of Christianity were solidified by 7 different early Church councils. There were many people teaching whatever they wanted and calling it Christianity and these councils helped separate the truth from the false teachings. Even today, there are thousands of theologians and scholars who are studying both Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and early writings and archaeologists examining different sites around the world of the Ancient Near East in an attempt to better understand the Bible.

Does that make sense? I'm sorry if I worded it poorly.

Are any of them trying to figure out how people lived to be over 900 years old, or are they just taking the Bible's word for it?

Tivo32
07-14-2011, 02:01 PM
Are any of them trying to figure out how people lived to be over 900 years old? Or are they just taking the Bible's word for it?

I think they are trying to figure out the language and context and phrasing for that particular aspect and what it meant to the original writer. They aren't scientists who are able to comment on the scientific aspect of it. There are parts of Christianity and religion that do require faith. I'm not taking that element out of it at all or trying to explain it away.

habsheaven
07-14-2011, 02:20 PM
I think they are trying to figure out the language and context and phrasing for that particular aspect and what it meant to the original writer. They aren't scientists who are able to comment on the scientific aspect of it. There are parts of Christianity and religion that do require faith. I'm not taking that element out of it at all or trying to explain it away.

So there are those that are skeptical of the claims and are therefore trying to "interpret" the language in a way to conform with "acceptable" scientific belief that it is not possible. And there are those that blindly believe that the scripture can be read verbatim.

ensbergcollector
07-14-2011, 02:23 PM
obviously no one wants to address my actual question. I am not trying to compare religion and science. My point is, whatever current theory of science is out there, is presented as fact. Until it is proven otherwise in which case they just move on to the next theory and present it as fact. In this thread alone the theories of evolution (man came from ape) and plate tectonics were brought up. All were presented as fact until they proved them wrong. So why does science continue to present everything as fact instead of theory?

Tivo32
07-14-2011, 02:31 PM
So there are those that are skeptical of the claims and are therefore trying to "interpret" the language in a way to conform with "acceptable" scientific belief that it is not possible. And there are those that blindly believe that the scripture can be read verbatim.

There are men and women who have studied for years in ancient languages and theology, who have Master's degrees and Ph.D's who realize that there is alot more going on in the Biblical text then simply "oh the Bible says that people lived to be 900, science says that's impossible, therefore the Bible is false and everyone who believes it is naive." The Bible is thousands of years old. Just like the Bible can not be used as a science manual. Neither can science be used to explain human history. Science is science. History is history. Both have their place.

There are intelligent and educated people who believe the Bible is true.

gatorboymike
07-14-2011, 03:03 PM
obviously no one wants to address my actual question. I am not trying to compare religion and science. My point is, whatever current theory of science is out there, is presented as fact. Until it is proven otherwise in which case they just move on to the next theory and present it as fact. In this thread alone the theories of evolution (man came from ape) and plate tectonics were brought up. All were presented as fact until they proved them wrong. So why does science continue to present everything as fact instead of theory?

No it isn't. As usual, you want to pretend science works just like religion works, because deep down you know religion is both baseless and dishonest and you therefore are unable to accept the idea that any "competing" institution could be any more honest or well-founded.

Also as usual, you have no idea what the word "theory" means in science. I'm really sick of explaining that to religionists, so go look it up yourself.

Ask a real scientist, and not a clergyman, and they will tell you that EVERYTHING in science is tentative. Everything comes with an unspoken asterisk at the end of it: *according to the best information we have presently available. When better information is obtained, theories have to be re-worked or discarded. That's called honesty. If science worked the way religion works, they would cling to old theories dogmatically and ignore or suppress the new evidence, and proclaim that the currently accepted theory is absolute and unquestionable truth and always will be. Oh wait, that's what you just accused them of. Well, guess what? You're absolutely, utterly and completely wrong. Need I repeat myself? Science does not work the way religion works. You may say you're not trying to compare them, but you are comparing them nonetheless.

Oh, and by the way...you know what proves science wrong? MORE SCIENCE and BETTER SCIENCE. Religion has NEVER proven anything in science wrong, despite its many assertions and proclamations of having done so.

ensbergcollector
07-14-2011, 03:07 PM
No it isn't. As usual, you want to pretend science works just like religion works, because deep down you know religion is both baseless and dishonest and you therefore are unable to accept the idea that any "competing" institution could be any more honest or well-founded.

Also as usual, you have no idea what the word "theory" means in science. I'm really sick of explaining that to religionists, so go look it up yourself.

Ask a real scientist, and not a clergyman, and they will tell you that EVERYTHING in science is tentative. Everything comes with an unspoken asterisk at the end of it: *according to the best information we have presently available. When better information is obtained, theories have to be re-worked or discarded. That's called honesty. If science worked the way religion works, they would cling to old theories dogmatically and ignore or suppress the new evidence, and proclaim that the currently accepted theory is absolute and unquestionable truth and always will be. Oh wait, that's what you just accused them of. Well, guess what? You're absolutely, utterly and completely wrong. Need I repeat myself? Science does not work the way religion works. You may say you're not trying to compare them, but you are comparing them nonetheless.

Oh, and by the way...you know what proves science wrong? MORE SCIENCE and BETTER SCIENCE. Religion has NEVER proven anything in science wrong, despite its many assertions and proclamations of having done so.

you are so wrapped up in your blind hatred for anything or anyone religious that you can't even answer a simple question about science. You claim there is an unspoken asterisk but the problem is that it is very unspoken. The majority of current scientific theories are very often cited as fact which is where my problem lies. care you answer my question without bile and venom? Are you capable of that?

gatorboymike
07-14-2011, 03:18 PM
you are so wrapped up in your blind hatred for anything or anyone religious that you can't even answer a simple question about science. You claim there is an unspoken asterisk but the problem is that it is very unspoken. The majority of current scientific theories are very often cited as fact which is where my problem lies. care you answer my question without bile and venom? Are you capable of that?

The scientific community is well aware of the asterisk and don't need to bother reminding one another of it when speaking amongst themselves.

If you have a problem with the way science is taught in schools, that's a problem for teachers rather than scientists. They do often forget to put things in the proper context, because, at elementary and junior high levels, science teachers are usually not scientists themselves and do not have a good understanding of what science is and how it is practiced.

What would you have them do? Preface every lesson with "By the way, kids, everything you're about to learn is based only on our best present understanding, which admittedly may not be complete or accurate, and if we learn more about it later on, we might be teaching something slightly or even completely different in a few years"? Your average elementary or junior high kid hears that, and what he takes away is "This stuff is probably all wrong anyway."

Tivo32
07-14-2011, 03:21 PM
That is a very good and very fair response.

habsheaven
07-14-2011, 03:25 PM
you are so wrapped up in your blind hatred for anything or anyone religious that you can't even answer a simple question about science. You claim there is an unspoken asterisk but the problem is that it is very unspoken. The majority of current scientific theories are very often cited as fact which is where my problem lies. care you answer my question without bile and venom? Are you capable of that?

I have no idea how a "theory" can be cited as a "fact". Perhaps you need to look up the definition of each and re-think that statement.

ensbergcollector
07-14-2011, 03:31 PM
I have no idea how a "theory" can be cited as a "fact". Perhaps you need to look up the definition of each and re-think that statement.

nope. fully aware of the definitions thank you. please don't join the ranks of those here who think if someone disagrees with you they must be an idiot.

Star_Cards
07-14-2011, 04:05 PM
obviously no one wants to address my actual question. I am not trying to compare religion and science. My point is, whatever current theory of science is out there, is presented as fact. Until it is proven otherwise in which case they just move on to the next theory and present it as fact. In this thread alone the theories of evolution (man came from ape) and plate tectonics were brought up. All were presented as fact until they proved them wrong. So why does science continue to present everything as fact instead of theory?

I guess I don't see science as presenting everything as fact. Science has a lot of theory, educated or otherwise. Just because something is science doesn't mean it's fact nor do I think science expresses everything as such.

habsheaven
07-14-2011, 04:48 PM
nope. fully aware of the definitions thank you. please don't join the ranks of those here who think if someone disagrees with you they must be an idiot.

I do not see any idiots around these boards, just people with different perspectives. The point I was trying to make is that scientists do not try to pass theory off as fact, because a theory is just that, a theory, not fact.

duane1969
07-14-2011, 06:19 PM
I do not see any idiots around these boards, just people with different perspectives. The point I was trying to make is that scientists do not try to pass theory off as fact, because a theory is just that, a theory, not fact.

No but scientists often quote other theories as support of their own theories. By default, when a scientist quotes a theory as support of their own then they are asking people to accept that the other theory must be correct or it wouldn't support this new theory.

tutall
07-16-2011, 12:37 AM
I guess I don't see science as presenting everything as fact. Science has a lot of theory, educated or otherwise. Just because something is science doesn't mean it's fact nor do I think science expresses everything as such.

I think his point was, many theories are presented as facts in a lot of cases... Take for instance global warming. Listen anywhere and the ice caps are about gone and the polar bears have no place to swim. If you listen to most media outlets man came from Chimps and there is no doubt about it. Regardless of what anyone says no one honestly knows 1 percent of everything there is to know about the Earth. We could be molds from a factory that sent all the defects to Earth and all the perfect models stay on planet Krypton for all we know. There are many theories but I would bet anything no one will ever know the origins of the Earth or humankind for that matter so to come on the boards and say you know evolution is true because of science is just not true.

gatorboymike
07-16-2011, 04:20 AM
This idea seems to be floating around a lot...that if you don't know 100% of everything, then you know 0% of everything, and every idea, no matter how whacked-out, unfounded or baseless, has an exactly equal chance of being correct and nobody can ever tell anyone their ideas are wrong. This idea is based on fallacious, immature, black-and-white thinking, and it is something people who know their ideas are whacked-out, unfounded and baseless use to drag everyone else down to their level.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Directed panspermia is a hypothesis without evidence to support it. Creationism is a baseless, dogmatic religious assertion. They are not on the same level by any means whatsoever. We are as justified in accepting evolution as we are in accepting germ theory, cell theory, or heliocentrism.

And by the way...media outlets are not scientific institutions.

habsheaven
07-16-2011, 09:05 AM
I think his point was, many theories are presented as facts in a lot of cases... Take for instance global warming. Listen anywhere and the ice caps are about gone and the polar bears have no place to swim. If you listen to most media outlets man came from Chimps and there is no doubt about it. Regardless of what anyone says no one honestly knows 1 percent of everything there is to know about the Earth. We could be molds from a factory that sent all the defects to Earth and all the perfect models stay on planet Krypton for all we know. There are many theories but I would bet anything no one will ever know the origins of the Earth or humankind for that matter so to come on the boards and say you know evolution is true because of science is just not true.

Please provide an example of this.