Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

my theory why we have such short lifespans


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

#76    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,597 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 07 February 2011 - 07:34 PM

Quote

That was in the nineteenth century, however. I should hope we have evolved somewhat since then, intellectually.

Evidently not kmt_sesh, as evidenced by some of the earlier posts.

Quote

But using this date of 2370 BCE and looking at just pharaonic Egypt alone, this places us in Dynasty 5 of the Old Kingdom.

And well after the largest attested flood in Sumer c.2750 - 2900 BC. And yet, Ancient Egyptian culture continued to exist. As did Mesopotamia, Anatolia and elsewhere. Guess they didn't know there was a "Great Flood" going on.  :rolleyes:

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#77    Salami Swami

Salami Swami

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 217 posts
  • Joined:17 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 February 2011 - 08:45 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 27 January 2011 - 12:27 AM, said:

Greetings, megabyte, and welcome to UM. :)

I echo the sentiments of others who have commented and must stress the fact that human lifespans are hardly static. In the Bronze Age, when the Sumerians, Akkadians, Egyptians, and others were honing the their creation myths, the average lifespan was approximately 35 years. Approximately thirty percent of all children died before their fifth year of life; 20% of all pregnancies ended in spontaneous miscarriage.

Today, on the other hand, the average lifespan (in the West, at least) is around 76 years. Further, the average human is significantly taller than his ancestor of some 3,000 years ago. Whereas most Westerners get married in their twenties and have children in their twenties or early thirties, in the Bronze Age a bride could be as young as twelve or thirteen years of age and her husband only a few years older. When you were eighteen years old and "middle-aged," you started a family by what we modern folks would consider to be extremely young--still kids, really.

A multiplicity of factors determine lifespan, and it's all well understood through scientific principles. Aliens are not needed. The most obvious factors are good nutrition and modern medicine. The absence of something so basic as vaccinations is one main reason the infant mortality rate in the ancient world was so universally high. And something many people don't realize is that one of the greatest inventions in all of human history was the capability to produce clean, safe drinking water; that alone lengthened average lifespans.

When trying to tackle these subjects in the course of one's studies, the critical factor is the quality of sources to which one turns. While there is an abundance of high-quality and reliable research material that is available to everyone, I cannot agree enough with something TheSearcher mentioned in the second post of this discussion: sources like Ancient Aliens are not to be trusted. I've seen numerous episodes of this program, myself. TheSearcher said that when you watch this program, you must take it's information with "a big bag of salt." I might extend this analogy and suggest there is not a bag of salt in this world that's large enough. The information dispensed on Ancient Aliens is so lacking in substance and scientific evaluation that, in my opinion, it has no research value whatsoever. In other words, you won't learn a single thing that's pertinent to real-world historical facts.

Finally, on the subject of aliens, I am not the least shy about stating my own opinion. I am absolutely certain that aliens had nothing whatsoever to do with the developments of ancient cultures around the world. Indeed, these ancient societies did not need the assistance of aliens. This is the sort of thing of which TV shows like Ancient Aliens are so unforgivably guilty: at the same time that they dispense oodles of intellectual flotsam, they rob ancient societies of the great things ancient peoples achieved. Give credit where credit is due. ;)

Amen, spoken like an expert!

Posted Image

#78    digitalartist

digitalartist

    Psychic Spy

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York State

  • I'm Done

Posted 07 February 2011 - 09:56 PM

View Postphysicsolved, on 07 February 2011 - 03:19 AM, said:

This is a statement of scientific and mathematic fact. Facts that would refute any who refer to the historical biblical account of a world wide deluge  as ...impossible. That event ( aside from mythos "copy cat" stories of floods found in just about all cultures that have ever existed) occurred about 2370 B.C.E and is recorded in the history book referred to as the bible.

The story is not possible as recounted in the bible.  I am not at my home computer where all my research materials are so I will show just a couple of instances to support what I say.  Later I can provide more if you wish as I will have my materials at hand.
.  

If you believe the bible indicates that all the mountains of the world were covered by water and that the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, then there is a big conflict there.  If the waters covered Mt Everest then Mt Ararat would have been 13,000 ft below the ark when the ark reached it's location and so couldn't have come to rest.  If the ark did come to rest on Mt Ararat, then the upper 13,000 ft of Mt Everest would never have been under water.  As you can see it negates one or the other.

Then there is the problem of a landing on the summit of Mt Ararat.  While I will concede that as the waters rise, temperature and pressure could remain the same for the passengers of the ark.  Once the waters had completely receded, the temperatures would have been below zero, pressure would have been reduced and the climatological conditions at the mountains summit, combined with the problems of climbing down a mountain with no equipment or experience would have sounded a death knell for almost all or all the passengers of the ark.


#79    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,653 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 07 February 2011 - 10:13 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 07 February 2011 - 07:34 PM, said:

Evidently not kmt_sesh, as evidenced by some of the earlier posts.

LOL Yep, that's what I was poking at in my own subtle and innocuous way. Evidently "some" people in this discussion need to understand what scientific evidence is before they start calling everything pulled from the **** "scientific."

View PostJoseph Mellow, on 07 February 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

Amen, spoken like an expert!

Thanks much, Mr. Mellow. :)

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#80    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 07 February 2011 - 11:48 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 07 February 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

I know your pain, Abramelin. Frustrating, isn't it? And tedious.

I particularly like the date of 2370 BCE for the biblical flood. Theologians of old came up with dates like this one, which is why the Church was so mortified by proper scientific studies of ancient Near Eastern cultures. The more people delved into the past, the more the Church feared its tenets would be upset.

That was in the nineteenth century, however. I should hope we have evolved somewhat since then, intellectually. Well, for the most part, we have. But using this date of 2370 BCE and looking at just pharaonic Egypt alone, this places us in Dynasty 5 of the Old Kingdom. The Egyptians had already been building pyramids nonstop for several centuries and would continue to do so for another dynasty or two, down to about 2200 BCE.

LOL But then all of a sudden comes the Flood! I guess all the pyramids of Dynasty 6 were more difficult to build because of it: "Well, boys, look at all the water. Better build the next ones with big floats at the bottom." :rolleyes:


Definitive historical dates as recorded in the bible and verified through secular history provide one with pivotal dates that allow one to “count back” ( relative to secular and biblical histories and genealogies) to the “approximate date” of the flood.( “about 2370”)

No amount of “delving in the past” change these realities relative to appropriate historical and genealogical references.

Egyptian chronologies …on the other hand are “clumsy” at best . Thus with regard to your equally “clumsy” appeal to such may I remind you of 2 things.

1)Egyptian chronology= ( reiteration) “grain of salt”..or perhaps: “bag of salt”.

2) Note: “Since great events tend to be recorded by civil servants working for the ruler, the natural way to date them is in relation to the present reign - in the fifth year, or at the time of the fifth harvest, of king so-and-so….The chronology of Egyptian history, as a succession of dynasties of pharaohs, is compiled with hindsight from such records. The earliest surviving list is put together in the 3rd century BC by Manetho, a priest in Alexandria. He is commissioned by Egypt's new ruler, Ptolemy I, to provide a coherent account of the country's past. Inevitably, in such a bold and difficult task, there are inaccuracies which modern research tends to point up. But Manetho's dynasties have remained the basis of Egyptian chronology.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

“LOL!”

As well: You assume that many of the pyramids on earth today, not excluding the Great Pyramid were built AFTER the flood. Many ( including the greatest pyramid) may have been built BEFORE the deluge. As it is there is NO reliable evidence one way or the other. I’m sure you will post “references” to the contrary but we all know the latter statement as to “accurate history and chronology” has been “lost in translation/ interpretation.


#81    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:05 AM

View PostCosmic Mushroom, on 07 February 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

Interesting theory. I don't believe it, but it is fun to think about.

You gave a summary of what this whole board is all about.

Thanks.


#82    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:11 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 07 February 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

I know your pain, Abramelin. Frustrating, isn't it? And tedious.

I particularly like the date of 2370 BCE for the biblical flood. Theologians of old came up with dates like this one, which is why the Church was so mortified by proper scientific studies of ancient Near Eastern cultures. The more people delved into the past, the more the Church feared its tenets would be upset.

That was in the nineteenth century, however. I should hope we have evolved somewhat since then, intellectually. Well, for the most part, we have. But using this date of 2370 BCE and looking at just pharaonic Egypt alone, this places us in Dynasty 5 of the Old Kingdom. The Egyptians had already been building pyramids nonstop for several centuries and would continue to do so for another dynasty or two, down to about 2200 BCE.

LOL But then all of a sudden comes the Flood! I guess all the pyramids of Dynasty 6 were more difficult to build because of it: "Well, boys, look at all the water. Better build the next ones with big floats at the bottom." :rolleyes:


I know you know, Kmt_sesh, but thanks for the support anyway (lol).

But my command of the English language is not as eloquent as some of the others here, and yes, ThAT is frustrating.

Religion and science don't mix.

I am glad there was some stubborn guy - a million years ago -  who hit 2 rocks together, and said, "Hey, look, I can create fire !!"

He was killed by the shaman of the tribe, no doubt.


#83    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,653 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:13 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 07 February 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

...

I’m sure you will post “references” to the contrary but we all know the latter statement as to “accurate history and chronology” has been “lost in translation/ interpretation.

I would be happy to continue to build my side of the argument, physicsolved, but your statement above reflects why I see no real point in debating you. My "references" would be drawn from the professional archaeologists and Egyptologists who are the most familiar with the issues in question, and yet it's abundantly clear that you would disregard any and all professional citations. I don't know for certain why you would chose this peculiar path, but I'm sure most would agree it's due to one of two reasons:

  • You are not familiar with the professional literature and have neither the drive nor the concern to acquaint yourself with it, and instead prefer to hold to personal assumptions as though they were facts;
  • or you're just familiar enough with the professional literature to know how easily it disproves you, so it behooves you to pretend as though it doesn't matter, as counter-productive as that may be.

Or perhaps it's a mixture of the two. In either case you are not equipped to debate me on a level playing field. You continue to ridicule either me or my sources while somehow thinking this bolsters your position. You've done the same thing with Swede and others, and I don't think you're aware of the credentials possessed by some of the people you're dismissing.

Whatever might be the case, debating you is nonproductive, as I enumerated in the Adonis=Aten thread. I'm still tempted to reply to your previous post, but if I chose to do so, it will be more for the benefit or interest of other posters. I feel it's important to strike a balance between the questionable statements of some posters and the historical facts that stand opposed to them. ;)

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#84    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:18 AM

View PostAmoebaa, on 06 February 2011 - 02:13 AM, said:

I have been recently reading through "The Lost Tablets of Enki" which discusses the creation of human. If you go by the theory that the Annunaki created us I think it is most apparent that our life span was not picked by them but the genetics, they discuss mixing their own DNA with that of upright hairy little men (Monkeys come to mind when I hear this description, or even cavemen) They stress that they are not creating a new creature, but "upgrading" one that is already alive because this is apparently against the law of creation to their culture. So I would assume to preserve the new creature (man) as close to the original creature (Ape/cavemen)as possible, the ape genes are more prominent. In their eyes man was also beneath them, Enki, Ninmah and another gentleman who was working with them (Don't remember his name off hand) didn't feel this way as far as I could understand. But even so that would be my theory on why our life span is as long as it is if you choose to follow that idea.

Start with this: "The Lost Tablets of Enki".

Do you or anyone else have any real scientific document to back this up?

If you like, I can produce an even more stunning translation. It will take me about one day.


#85    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:21 AM

View Postdigitalartist, on 07 February 2011 - 09:56 PM, said:

The story is not possible as recounted in the bible.  I am not at my home computer where all my research materials are so I will show just a couple of instances to support what I say.  Later I can provide more if you wish as I will have my materials at hand.
.  

If you believe the bible indicates that all the mountains of the world were covered by water and that the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, then there is a big conflict there.  If the waters covered Mt Everest then Mt Ararat would have been 13,000 ft below the ark when the ark reached it's location and so couldn't have come to rest.  If the ark did come to rest on Mt Ararat, then the upper 13,000 ft of Mt Everest would never have been under water.  As you can see it negates one or the other.

Then there is the problem of a landing on the summit of Mt Ararat.  While I will concede that as the waters rise, temperature and pressure could remain the same for the passengers of the ark.  Once the waters had completely receded, the temperatures would have been below zero, pressure would have been reduced and the climatological conditions at the mountains summit, combined with the problems of climbing down a mountain with no equipment or experience would have sounded a death knell for almost all or all the passengers of the ark.

Huh!

I will not pursue this line of argument. Nothing you have said historically invalidates the flood nor where the ark came to rest nor the supposed “impossibilities” of humans descending the mountain range ( a range that encompasses “2 conical peaks separated by a deep depression….as well: (only) the last 3,000 ft up to its summit is perpetually covered with snow.) If what is true of the modern scenario was true of the ancient time of the ark this would represent a traversing of less than 1 mile down the slope. As well given humans are “relatively smart” ( evolutionists: a little more than apes) they utilized the many animals to aid them in the descent. Riding on animal backs, wearing animal skins, plenty of drinking water carried by animals, plenty of food carried by animals. Plenty of fire ( evolutionists: good thing animals had epiphanies..eh), Plenty of wood( extracted from the ark) , smart enough to make wheels for a warm carriage big enough for 8 people drawn by animals ( take there pick) etc..etc… Thus: with these provisions they could travel up the mountain back down up again and back down. And yet they really only had to travel a little more than 2 miles.

And you insult the intelligent faculties of humans that lived a little more than 4,000 years ago. You state something that is so absurd that it is inexcusable. Thus you imply that Noah and his family had “no equipment or experience.” Yet only 8 of them built and ark bigger than the titanic that housed many animals and provided them shelter from the divine storm for 1 year. Yet they lacked tools and equipment to build a carriage with wheels! Ridiculous.

This is how evolutionists think. Thus this is how they are easily exposed as “absurd in their thinking processes.” You see Noah as a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound. You consider his immediate family of “hominoid retarded people.” as incapable of collectively much less individually devising a way to walk down a mountain for about 2-3 hours.

Most  of the responses of this room are predisposed to see our human forefathers in this light. This being so certainly explains the desperate to the point of fanciful reasoning expressed relative to some posts. The refusal to think about anything reasonably and to acknowledge the logical and historical relevancies of anything.

And some in the room say they are growing weary of debate with me. Sigh!

I can only say: Skepticism - Accept it, Embrace it. For this seems to be the "incurable" mental modem of operandi

Edited by physicsolved, 08 February 2011 - 12:24 AM.


#86    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:21 AM

Say, physicsolved, in many of your posts you twist, distort and mangle English words to prove a point.

Have you ever considered the fact that English was very probably not the language spoken in 'Babylon'?


#87    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:26 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 08 February 2011 - 12:13 AM, said:

I would be happy to continue to build my side of the argument, physicsolved, but your statement above reflects why I see no real point in debating you. My "references" would be drawn from the professional archaeologists and Egyptologists who are the most familiar with the issues in question, and yet it's abundantly clear that you would disregard any and all professional citations. I don't know for certain why you would chose this peculiar path, but I'm sure most would agree it's due to one of two reasons:

  • You are not familiar with the professional literature and have neither the drive nor the concern to acquaint yourself with it, and instead prefer to hold to personal assumptions as though they were facts;
  • or you're just familiar enough with the professional literature to know how easily it disproves you, so it behooves you to pretend as though it doesn't matter, as counter-productive as that may be.

Or perhaps it's a mixture of the two. In either case you are not equipped to debate me on a level playing field. You continue to ridicule either me or my sources while somehow thinking this bolsters your position. You've done the same thing with Swede and others, and I don't think you're aware of the credentials possessed by some of the people you're dismissing.

Whatever might be the case, debating you is nonproductive, as I enumerated in the Adonis=Aten thread. I'm still tempted to reply to your previous post, but if I chose to do so, it will be more for the benefit or interest of other posters. I feel it's important to strike a balance between the questionable statements of some posters and the historical facts that stand opposed to them. ;)


No. "I don't think you're aware of the credentials possessed by some of the people you're dismissing."


#88    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:29 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:

Say, physicsolved, in many of your posts you twist, distort and mangle English words to prove a point.

Have you ever considered the fact that English was very probably not the language spoken in 'Babylon'?


I would encourage Abrameline to visit my thread in this forum discussing language and anatomy.

"Animal determanitives"......? Related to anatomy? Related to ancient and modern language?

Edited by physicsolved, 08 February 2011 - 12:31 AM.


#89    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:30 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 07 February 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:


As well: You assume that many of the pyramids on earth today, not excluding the Great Pyramid were built AFTER the flood. Many ( including the greatest pyramid) may have been built BEFORE the deluge. As it is there is NO reliable evidence one way or the other. I’m sure you will post “references” to the contrary but we all know the latter statement as to “accurate history and chronology” has been “lost in translation/ interpretation.


You ever heard of radiocarbon dating? Nothing to do with translation, whatsoever.

In the morter the Gypsies (I can play with words too, heh) used to stick the rocks together, they found traces of charcoal. They dated it, and alas....


#90    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:32 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:29 AM, said:

I would encourage Abrameline to visit my thread in this forum discussing language and anatomy.

I did, and that is where I asked for a 'straightjacket' smiley....


.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 February 2011 - 12:33 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users