• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

poll: are you an ape?

are you an ape?


  • Total voters
    71

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
So where does she mention aliens genetically engineering humans?

Thats in the Atra Hasis Text - Starting on Page 14. It would be helpful to know the basics of the Sumerian creation story at this point .. and have read the first 13 pages .. but the Annunaki are the are the higher Gods and the Igigi are lower gods .. something like the sons of God in the Bible.

In any case .. here we have a slain God .. the God/ blood mixed with the Clay (Earthling) .. this is later incubated in 14 Annukaki wombs 7 male and 7 female the story goes on for quite in the description .. that last little tid bit comming on page 17 which you can read

Every day the earth (?) [resounded (?)]. The warning signal was loud enough, [we kept hearing the noise.] There is [ ] Belet-ili the womb-goddess is presentLet her create primeval man So that he may bear the yoke [( )], So that he may bear the yoke, [the work of Ellil], Let man bear the load of the gods' Belet-ili the womb-goddess is present, Let the womb-goddess create offspring, And let man bear the load of the gods!' They called up the goddess, asked The midwife of the gods, wise Mami, 'You are the womb-goddess (to be the) creator of mankind! Create primeval man, that he may bear the yoke! Let him bear the yoke, the work of Ellil, Let man bear the load of the gods!' Nintu made her voice heard And spoke to the great gods, 'It is not proper for me to make him. The work is Enki's; He makes everything pure! If he gives me clay, then I will do it.' Enki made his voice heard And spoke to the great gods, 'On the first, seventh, and fifteenth of the month I shall make a purification by washing. Then one god should be slaughtered. And the gods can be purified by immersion. Nintu shall mix clay With his flesh and his blood. Then a god and a man Will be mixed together in clay. Let us hear the drumbeat forever after, 10 Let a ghost come into existence from the god's flesh,11 Let her proclaim it as his living sign, 12 And let the ghost exist so as not to forget (the slain god).' They answered 'Yes!' in the assembly, The great Anunnaki who assign the fates. On the first, seventh, and fifteenth of the month He made a purification by washing. Ilawela who had intelligence,11 They slaughtered in their assembly. Nintu mixed clay With his flesh and blood. They heard the drumbeat forever after. 16 Myths from Mesopotamia A ghost came into existence from the god's flesh, And she (Nintu) proclaimed it as his living sign. v The ghost existed so as not to forget (the slain god). After she had mixed that clay, She called up the Anunnaki, the great gods. The Igigi, the great gods, Spat spittle upon the clay. Mami made her voice heard And spoke to the great gods, 'I have carried out perfectly The work that you ordered of me. You have slaughtered a god together with his intelligence. I have relieved you of your hard work, I have imposed your load on man. You have bestowed noise on mankind. I have undone the fetter and granted freedom.' They listened to this speech of hers,13 And were freed (from anxiety), and kissed her feet: 'We used to call you Mami But now your name shall be Mistress of All Gods.'

Sitchen did not make up the Annunaki coming from the Sky Friend .. didn't make up that these Gods created a primative version of themselves that was hybrid with the Annunaki .. -- The Bible puts the Adamu as so much like the Gods that they can mate.. "Like US" "In Our Image" we even look like them .. how else do you think these Gods created a worker drone from a primative human .. that looks like the Gods .. if not with some kind of artificial insemination .. splicing the God's DNA with that of the Primative human. .. just like is being described.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
It sounds as if he believes the mockumentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". He did not understand that the "No intelligence allowed" part of the title referred to those involved in making that film:


" The New York Times deemed it "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike". "

Just about every claim in the movie was refuted after it came out.
If one has to resort of deception, distortion, and dishonesty to support a position, then that position is garbage.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Obviously I am limited to what Google provides… but I found this quote:

(1) Derogatory and clearly inappropriate comments​

Examples range from placing obscene or anti-creationist cartoons in the workers’ mailboxes to open, blatant, inappropriate direct name-calling. Bolyanatz32 noted that evolutionists often assume that


Gross name-calling, even by eminent scientists, is commonly found in the secular literature.33,34 A typical example is Isaac Asimov’s statement that all


(2) Refusal of admittance to graduate programs​

It was found that it was not uncommon for a creationist to be denied admission to a degree program even if he/she clearly exceeded published admission standards. In some cases the person denied was able to locate letters of recommendation which recommended against admission specifically because of the candidate’s creationist worldview.

(3) Refusal to award degree​

Some creationists interviewed, although they clearly met all of the requirements, were openly denied a degree (usually a Ph.D. in the sciences) because of their creation orientation and/or publications.

(4) Denial of promotion​

Many creationists claimed that they were not promoted even though they clearly exceeded the written standards for promotion (high student ratings, more than an adequate number of publications, etc.). In several cases this was openly because of their creationist publications.36,37

(5) Denial of tenure​

Many cases of tenure denial clearly based mainly on the creationist activities of the candidate were encountered. It was often obvious that bias existed because of active involvement in the creationist movement. Research has well documented that a known scientific creationist who does not experience some bias in this crucial decision is a rare exception.38 This view was fully supported by the interviews with creationist professors and others.


  1. Bolyanatz, A.H., The creation/evolutionary controversy … more heat than light, Anthropology Newsletter25(7):I and II, 1984. Return to text.
  2. Bergman, Ref. 5. Return to text.
  3. Bergman, Ref. 6. Return to text.
  4. Asimov, L., Is Big Brother watching? The Humanist 44(4):6–10, 1984. Return to text.
  5. Bergman Ref. 5. Return to text.
  6. Carnes, T., Denial of promotion response, Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 8(1):3, 1985. Return to text.
  7. Tourney, C., God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1994. Return to text.
  8. Beard, E.N. (ed.), Members’ notable notes, Universitas 16(7):3, 1985. Return to text.
Even if we assume that to be true, it clearly wasn't systemic or successful. There are creationists with degrees and tenure. (Though I'd advocate to revoke the degrees of those who refuse to do scientific work and are actively undermining the scientific process. Signing "statements of faith" as required by the DI or AiG is a clear sign of having left the scientific community.)

Creationists are high risk people. Not only can they taint the reputation of an institution but they also might participate in illegal behaviour. Teaching creationism in a science class is illegal and DI "scientists" have given the impression to the Dover school board that ID is science. It cost the Dover district about $ 1,000,000.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
and how did you miss the fact that I say the Ugarit Story is far more detailed ? .. in any case .. Everything is in the Bible except the Laboring for God and that 7 annunaki women served as creation vessels .. although how else is one to do in-vetro fertilization without the involvement of at least one annunaki woman ?
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I can agree that there are similarities. And to me the interesting question is, does this confirm the Bible that there are other sources telling almost the same things?
 

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I can agree that there are similarities. And to me the interesting question is, does this confirm the Bible that there are other sources telling almost the same things?

Absolutely ! This confirms many things in the Bible .. and fills in some of the gaps in the stories. For example Psalm 82 ..

1God stands in[b] the assembly of El;[c]
in the midst of the gods[d] he renders judgment.[e]

6 I say,[m] ‘You are gods;
all of you are sons of the Most High.’[n]
7 Yet you will die like mortals;[o]
you will fall like all the other rulers.”[p]
8 Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth!
For you own[q] all the nations.



So this is YHWH standing in the Assembly of EL .. in the midst of the Gods he renders Judgement. What is Going on here ? .. who is this EL fellow .. and all athese other Gods .. the correct translation of 6 is "Sons of the Supreme One" El- Olium

This is all very confusing to a monotheist would you not say ? who are all these other Gods .. and what you will find is that modern Bibles translators since the Masoretic Text 700-1000AD trip all over themselves to hide these other divinities. they say Oh Oh Oh .. those were not really "Sons of God" .. but Human Leaders and so forth.. but now, because of all this other information .. we know how to interpret this passage .. and so bibles such as the one I am quoting .. will have footnotes giving a more updated description of what is happening ..

El is Chief God of the Canaanite Pantheon .. Canaanite version of Enlil of the Sumerians .. and simply on this basis El was "the Most High" to Abraham who came out of Ur. If you more of the religious beliefs of the day .. .. Marduk defeats one of the Primordial Chaos Gods Tiamat .. and for this he is awarded Chief Diety on Earth Status .. usurping the position of EL on Earth .. in the Heavens however El is Still supreme.

The story of the Bible is YHWH ... one of the 70 sons of EL as described in Deuteronomy 32:8 .. each given a portion of the peopoles of the Earth . YHWH's portion Jacob.

These sons of EL then fight over supremacy of the Earth .. YHWH sometimes loses .. such as is recorded in the Moabite Stone/ Mesha stone .. and in the Bible .. YHWH loses the battle to the God of the Moabites.

This Psalm is describing the final victory of YHWH over the other Sons of God .. becomming Chief Diety on Earth. In the end however .. Marduk ends up beating YHWH .. destorying the place where his name resided .. for the Israelites .. who's YHWH God was dead when Assyria laid waste to the Northern Kingdom ~ 700 BC the remaining kingdom of Judah has now been destroyed by the Babylonians .. and with it the Temple of Lord YHWH in Jerusalem .. their God Died.

The resurrection of YHWH . .. in the form of Ahura Mazda is a story for another day.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Creationists are high risk people. Not only can they taint the reputation of an institution but they also might participate in illegal behaviour. Teaching creationism in a science class is illegal and DI "scientists" have given the impression to the Dover school board that ID is science. It cost the Dover district about $ 1,000,000.
This is a great example of what I was talking about. As soon as you believer that ID is a possible, if not probable, answer - you are automatically demeaned and labeled.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is a great example of what I was talking about. As soon as you believer that ID is a possible, if not probable, answer - you are automatically demeaned and labeled.
No, that is not accurate. ID has been shown to be a failed idea that has no scientific evidence behind it. When Behe first proposed his idea he did it correctly. He did so in the form of a testable hypothesis. But, and here is the important point, that version was tested and shown to fail. A scientist at this point if he really believed that he was right would have done so more studying and formed another testable hypothesis. What did Behe do instead? He redefined ID in such a way that it could not be tested. Behe himself made ID pseudoscience. And scientists rightfully have no respect at all for pseudoscience.

Let me tell you something about the sciences. The easy problems have all been solved a long long time ago. We are still solving problems today but it takes a lot more work. And there are many false steps along the way. The odds are fairly high that any one scientific hypothesis will be shown to be wrong. Scientists know this. Scientists accept this.

Even when an idea is shown to be wrong most of the time it is not a total waste. Quite often the seeds to success are found in our failures. Being shown to be wrong at the very least tells us which way to go. But when one makes one's formerly refuted ideas untestable they are no longer scientific since testing an idea is a key part of the scientific method.

When one is shown to be wrong, decides to ignore that and makes one's ideas untestable one has left the sciences and gone into pseudoscience. The work done in that area becomes worthless since it cannot be tested to support anything. As I told you we can progress from when we are shown to be wrong. We cannot progress from the endless errors in pseudoscience. They earn the title "Not even wrong".

Behe only has himself to blame for his failures.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
No, that is not accurate. ID has been shown to be a failed idea that has no scientific evidence behind it. When Behe first proposed his idea he did it correctly. He did so in the form of a testable hypothesis.
He almost did it correctly. He didn't propose his ideas in a science journal but in a book.
But his ideas indeed were taken as a challenge and that challenge was met. 10 years after the book scientists had figured out the evolutionary and genetic pathway to the flagellum.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
He almost did it correctly. He didn't propose his ideas in a science journal but in a book.
But his ideas indeed were taken as a challenge and that challenge was met. 10 years after the book scientists had figured out the evolutionary and genetic pathway to the flagellum.
He chose a few cutting edge problems of the time. There is a risk when one sites cutting edge science. It is cutting edge because we just developed the technology to observe it properly. That means that there will probably not be an explanation at that time. It is silly to assume that there never will be an explanation.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This is a great example of what I was talking about. As soon as you believer that ID is a possible, if not probable, answer - you are automatically demeaned and labeled.
Let's put it simply on a factual basis.

Intelligent Design would require falsification of the hypothesis that complexity cannot come about naturally. Science cannot falsify negative hypotheses, At present science has falsified the hypotheses of ALL forms of complexity in life to have natural origins in the evolution of life. . You said, "I believe . . ." This is a religious belief in a Creator Designer God. Science can only falsify hypotheses based on objectively verifiable evidence of our physical existence. This does not work in Science.
 
Last edited:

1213

Well-Known Member
...
1God stands in[b] the assembly of El;[c]
...
So this is YHWH standing in the Assembly of EL .. in the midst of the Gods he renders Judgement. What is Going on here ? .. who is this EL fellow .. and all athese other Gods .. the correct translation of 6 is "Sons of the Supreme One" El- Olium
Sorry, I don't think Bible gives enough reason to think there is God named El is someone else than YHWH.
..This is all very confusing to a monotheist would you not say ? who are all these other Gods .. and what you will find is that modern Bibles translators since the Masoretic Text 700-1000AD trip all over themselves to hide these other divinities. they say Oh Oh Oh .. those were not really "Sons of God" .. but Human Leaders and so forth.. .
I believe they were archangels or human leaders. Some humans are called son's of God in the Bible.
The resurrection of YHWH . .. in the form of Ahura Mazda is a story for another day.
I think it would be god to know that Bible doesn't say Jesus is the YHWH.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
This is a great example of what I was talking about. As soon as you believer that ID is a possible, if not probable, answer - you are automatically demeaned and labeled.
One is supposed to take an objective look at the available evidence, and then form a logical conclusion from it. You don't start by choosing the conclusion you wish to be true, and then cherry-pick whatever evidence you think supports it, while ignoring everything else. That's dishonest and has no place in academia.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sorry, I don't think Bible gives enough reason to think there is God named El is someone else than YHWH.

Don't think?!?!?! Read the actual text of the Pentateuch instead of thinking from a biased perspective.
I believe they were archangels or human leaders. Some humans are called son's of God in the Bible.

I think it would be god to know that Bible doesn't say Jesus is the YHWH.
Of course God knows one way or the other. The problem is with the Bible in plain reading in Hebrew, which you are neglecting.
 
Last edited:
Top