1. 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!

Featured Ancient Reality

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by cladking, Mar 31, 2018.

  1. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    So I need to go back to school to even be a pseudo-scientist. It's interesting you believe this even after I repeatedly say I don't even believe in "rabbits". No matter what you call them I don't believe there is such a thing but you want me to capitalize a nonexistent word using your rules!

    OK, just for you; Homo omnisciensis. Do you now believe we are a different species than the Homo sapiens sapiens who built the great pyramids? Do you now understand that we've grown a new speech center to translate the digital brain to an analog language? Am I magically correct because I've used standard capitalization?

    You still disagree and still don't understand the argument would be my guess.

    Are you aware of all the experiments that show we understand the world chiefly in terms of our beliefs? If animals don't have beliefs (just like Ancient Language had no words for belief) then what do they use to drive their behavior? Is it really so absurd to believe they model reality itself in terms of their instincts, genes, experience, and language? Is it really so strange to believe animals have consciousness and this consciousness aids in their survival. Have you ever seen a mother "rabbit" beat off a "bobcat" to save its baby? What told it how to maneuver and kick in such a way as to drive off a bobcat? Was it simple belief in a rabbit "god"? Or maybe it has the ability to think and learn. Did it cast a spell on the bobcat to make it stupid? If magic doesn't work to preserve the lives of baby rabbits then why would a species as "smart" as man try to use magic to survive? Where is your evidence that "neter" meant "God"?

    Egyptological beliefs are illogical, non sequitur, and unevidenced but you still call my fact, experiment, and logic based theory that makes sound prediction, "pseudo-science".

    One of the biggest reasons yopu can't believe it is that you can't imagine what you believe is "science" can be even a little bit wrong. You can't believe anything in religion can be even a little bit right. It doesn't matter one whit to you whether the "science" is based on experiment or not and it doesn't matter what the Bible is based on. Science good, religion bad. This is a knee jerk reaction and doesn't require evidence, logic, or even thought. Just like everyone else you already have every answer and your every experience reinforces them; Homo omnisciensis.

    Meanwhile our ancestors were wise and left us a time capsule they knew we'd someday be able to open; Homo sapiens.

    But we're too damn superstitious to even see the evidence.
     
  2. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,801
    Ratings:
    +3,306
    Religion:
    Christian
    Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions | Page 11 ...
    https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/creation-and-evolution-compatible-questions...
    Mar 21, 2018 · There is no "homo (sic) omnisciensis" (sic) and as for "original language", well, that is a chimera. With all the real things to learn and study, it seems a waste to …
     
  3. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    You apparently are wholly incapable of considering or trying to answer my questions.

    All you can do is repeat what you think is scientific mantra as you ignore it.

    Please expect me to ignore your responses since they will be more of the same.
     
  4. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Our brains are digital. Neurons are either on or off the same way all things either exist or do not. Reality is digital and animal brains which perceive it are digital. Because of this they are able to model reality itself (to the degree they understand it). They don't have beliefs or words for "belief" because it is an abstraction and there is no referent in reality. What possible good could it do a rabbit to believe there is no bobcat on the prowl?

    Our brains (higher brain functions) have been reprogrammed by analog (confused) language. We now model our beliefs rather than reality. This was made possible by the ancient invention of agriculture which can sustain stinky footed bumpkins just as easily as Homo sapiens or rats. When the language that sustained the inventors failed it was just us and the rats left.

    These are not complicated concepts. Surely with your deep understanding of science you can cite some physical evidence or some experiment that shows I'm wrong. But I know you can't because I'd have heard it before. Instead of facts and science people cite Egyptological beliefs and opinion. You know, ancient people were stinky footed changeless bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps. It doesn't matter that these have no scientific basis because we are told Egyptology is science and science good, religion bad.

    I know the idea of metaphysical language is surprising but few people even bother to ask me how it works! Few people understand how their own language works. Modern translators use non-standard English into which they translate the Ancient Language and they don't even know that we parse our language and can't understand the concept of a language that can't be parsed exactly like mathematics or computer code. When you change word order or assign meaning to words in Ancient Language the meaning is destroyed, if you don't do it to our language there is no meaning at all. But people have conversations with two topics at once and don't notice either. People don't understand their own language, their own consciousness or their own means and modes of thought and all I can do is compare ancient reality to their beliefs that don't include the reality of their own consciousness.

    This is my burden. Sure I'm a terrible author but Shakespeare himself couldn't communicate to people who won't understand, won't ask questions, and won't challenge arguments they believe are false. If all people want to do is gainsay me then why do they respond at all? Why do all of my questions go unanswered and unaddressed? These are simple questions. How is it I answer every question and my every question is ignored?

    Most of the time the Egyptologists line up on the low road and toss ad hominins at me and play word games and semantics. They make unsubstantiated and condescending comments as though this should be sufficient to convince even the stupidest among us that superstition made people strong and capable! They are wrong. They are wrong on every count and on a Biblical scale. It's not science and peer review can't change reality or make a sow's ear out of a silk purse.
     
  5. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Your ability to see that there is a perspective from which no two things exist doesn't exist.

    If you could see things from this perspective my points would be more visible.

    All the evidence, logic, and theory fit a pattern that is hard to see from the perspective of a 'rabbit counter". We must see our world in terms of the models we make up from experiment, language, and what we choose to believe. Once you believe that observation is sufficient to science then you have lost sight of the natures of science and language.
     
  6. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,801
    Ratings:
    +3,306
    Religion:
    Christian
    You've been down this road on this forum and many others. What's your deal? Are you obsessed with this metaphysical stuff and proving you're more intelligent than everyone else including world class Egyptologists? That link is from YOU.
     
  7. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    As I've said many times, intelligence doesn't even exist as we define it. I used to tell people I was less stupid than everyone else but this was just a joke and in no way true. I'm as satupid as anybody. Our perception of intelligence is generated by the way we think which is a manifestation of language. We think in language (I think therefore I am) and leaves us with the idea we aren't dependent on others or those who came before; that we aren't a product of language. The brain is rather remarkable and has modes of operation as well as types driven by language. These modes are learned as well just like language and are composed primarily of language. We don't all think alike though there are some things that are common to everyone. I think intuitively because this is what I chose. The important questions will never be answerable by science so it just seemed more economical and efficient to skip ahead to answers. To each his own. The important questions are the only ones worth asking for me. To each his own.

    The "metaphysical stuff" is the only way to know what we know. Understanding this isn't important if you're a specialist but it is critical to some things. Most of these are things most people don't care about but it seems that one of the things to which it is important is reverse engineering the pyramids and another is understanding Ancient Language. This is not to say that intuition or being a metaphysician were primary to establishing my theory or to making any discovery. Rather I just stumbled on these because for one I always believed everyone always makes perfect sense in terms of his premises and for another a lifetime of experience moving heavy weights gave me the visceral knowledge to believe it was impossible for ancient people to build pyramids as they were said to have done it. If I'm proven right about any of this it won't mean I'm "intelligent" so much as I was "lucky" enough to be in the right place at the right time with the right beliefs while search engines still worked. If there were such a thing as intelligence I'm sure I'd lose out to a great number of Egyptologists.

    The real issue here is that I can't account for how it's possible that ancient people said exactly and literally what they meant but modern people can't understand. I can show their exact words pertaining to any subject and how the literal meaning is always in agreement with reality and my theory. Yet despite this and despite the fact their words are supported by extensive physical evidence nobody can seem to see that we could be wrong. It seems every single person is right about every single thing but when I come up with something that seems obvious but surprising, it is rejected out of hand.

    The odds of everything fitting together through mere chance are astronomical leaving only two possible realities; either I'm engaging in a strictly circular argument or people do not understand metaphysics so they don't know what they know. In light of the fact that arguments against my theory tend to be weak and it makes sound predictions, I'm going with the idea that people don't know what they know. Considering the pushback I get when I point out the simple truism that we see what we believe the most likely appears to be that people don't understand the nature of science, language, thought, etc...
     
    #307 cladking, May 23, 2019
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  8. Truly Enlightened

    Truly Enlightened Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,299
    Ratings:
    +595
    Thank you. Not wasting any more of my time trying to rationalize with anymore "attention junkies". They are worse than "depression junkies", or "adrenaline junkies". They will just drain you emotionally, no matter how much evidence and rational explanations you provide. This road would eventually lead you to question your own years of scientific studies, knowledge, and experiences, without having to provide any rational objective evidence of their own. Or just become more angry and frustrated. I just can't bare to read anymore of this hyperbolic, obtuse, disjointed, ignorant and illiterate obfuscated gibberish any longer. Truly, having a little knowledge CAN be a dangerous thing. It is better just to ignore this nonsense, or choose to continue falling down all the rabbit holes that will be placed in your path.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Real science is always right from the perspective of its definitions and axioms.

    "Knowledge" has meaning only to the degree it is derived from good science or experience.

    Experience is the only true knowledge. Good science should provide a framework for experience.


    Because of our confused language we can not directly experience reality and must rely on making good mental models and in seeing them from different perspectives.

    Much science today, especially in the soft sciences, is not real science at all.
     
  10. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,904
    Ratings:
    +3,952
    Religion:
    Pi π
    What you have provided isn't science at all. Your perverted version of metaphysics isn't even soft science.

    Metaphysics is an over-rated philosophy, relying too much on circular reasoning, spending far too much time rationalising existence, and that has made metaphysics passed its used-by-date.

    And you are a master of circular reasoning.

    You don't even understand the concept of evidences.

    Good science isn't about a person's personal experience; real science is about being able to test, measure and quantify the evidences, not mere personal experience.

    If you want personal experience to be the measure of science, then you in the realm of science, so psychology or therapy is far more appropriate your silly archaic metaphysics.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Actually as I've said, and you have not even argued against it in any way, all evidence and logic support my theory.

    In order to argue against this YOU MUST SHOW SOME EVIDENCE OR LOGIC THAT CONTRADICTS MY THEORY.

    Just saying that all evidence and logic do not support my theory is empty rhetoric. ANYONE can gainsay ANYTHING and it means NOTHING without an argument.

    If you have any "evidences" that contradict my theory or ANY OF THE SUPPORTING LOGIC AND FACTS I'VE ALREADY PROVIDED, then let's hear it.

    I say you're wrong and back it up with facts and then you say I'm wrong and back it with rhetoric, semantics, and word games. Why don't you comment on the ramp having been debunked or the extensive evidence for funiculars? Why don't you show scientists have no beliefs even after i showed they do?

    You have presented no argument.
     
  12. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,904
    Ratings:
    +3,952
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Wow, you are really something.

    You have claimed there were NO BELIEF BEFORE 2000 BCE, which essentially mean no religions, no religious customs (which would also include no “funerary” customs), no superstitions.

    And most of your examples in your posts centred around the pyramids, and you believed that there were no belief in this period (in this case the Old Kingdom period, c 2686 - c 2181 BCE, which included 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th dynasties).

    But the thing what you seemed to don’t understand that the 3rd and 4th dynasties did leave all that much writings, so we really don’t have much to go on what they believe or what they know. Most of the writings that do exist in the Old Kingdom belonged to the 5th and 6th dynasties, like the Palmero Stone (a fragment of much stele, contains the royal annals of the OK, up to the 5th dynasty), the Pyramid Texts (which we already discussed and have only disagree on), and various inscriptions found on some objects.

    Second, you assumed that the ancient Egyptians before 2000 BCE, have the “Ancient Language” and “Ancient Science”, but no religion, no belief.

    And yet, you have no evidences of Ancient Language that contained any writing that has (ancient) “science” in it, because basically you don’t understand what science is.

    Science is a tool to explain any observable phenomena or object, and EXPLAIN several essential questions:
    1. WHAT it is,
    2. HOW does it work (eg its mechanism),
    3. and WHAT and HOW it can be used (meaning the application).
    The last one (point 3) is actually two questions. And for those questions to be answered, it need to be tested by evidences findings or test results from controlled experiments.

    That’s what any falsifiable hypothesis and theory are, cladking, a set of explanatory descriptions of what it is, how it work and to explore if there are any application that you are investigating.

    There are no writings whatsoever in Egyptian history BEFORE 2000 BCE, in which they ever explain how they do things. There no manuals, no instruction books of how they build anything, including building their pyramids, temples and palaces.

    They just do, it by passing what they have learned to the next generations, but there are no science involved.

    Science would required some systematic explanations, which don’t exist prior to 2000 BCE.

    That doesn’t mean to say the ancient Egyptians of the 3rd millennium BCE or older) were stupid. I don’t think they were stupid.

    No archaeologists or historians or Egyptologists are saying they were ignorant. They along with Sumerians-Akkadians were technologically superior to most of other contemporary civilizations and cultures near them, but they weren’t scientists.

    The problem here, is you, cladking, you are confusing technological advances with science.

    Science, or more precisely “natural philosophy” didn’t go hand-in-hand with technology, until the 1st millennium BCE in Greece (and as well as in Greek colonies, like in the Aegean, Asia Minor (or modern Anatolian Turkey), southern Italy and Sicily), which accumulated in Hellenistic Ptolemaic period and early Roman period.

    It were the Greeks philosophers, the mathematicians, the physicians, etc, who actually attempted to understand nature and explain. Don’t get me wrong, the philosophers weren’t all-knowing, but they did try to leave the religious or superstitious belief aside...but not always so successful.

    But what you failed to understand is that technological progress don’t always involve “science”.

    It is possible to make advances in technology without science.

    The Neolithic societies especially on the Nile and on Euphrates and Tigris, have managed to make advances in agricultural farming (including irrigation) and animal husbandry, in storage of food by making vessels using clay and pottery, and from building huts to houses using mud bricks - all done technologically, without explaining anything via science.

    Science required systematic explanations, which the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE Egyptians were incapable of doing, and that from the lack of literary evidences. There are no scientific hypotheses or scientific theories in prehistoric and early (3rd millennium BCE) ancient Egypt.

    You say “belief” don’t exist before 2000 BCE, but the word for don’t have to exist for people to have belief.

    Writings didn’t exist before 3300 BCE, so there were no written words during the Neolithic period, like sun, moon, mountains, forest, farming, cattle, house, man, woman, child, etc, but they all exist before the written words.

    You are not thinking logically, cladking.

    In one of sayak83’s earlier post, he quoted an article on the discovery of tombs at Hierakonpolis (Nekken), which showed signed of ritualistic funerary customs, several centuries before even the 1st dynasty (1st dynasty started c 3150 BCE). (See post #53, April 2, 2018)

    Burying anyone of status along with worldly objects and animal remains are signs of customs of religious in nature, and the customs didn’t end with the dynastic periods, including the Old Kingdom pyramids (Saqqara, Dahshur and Giza), the royal necropolis of Abydos, or in the tombs of the Valley of the Kings near Thebes.

    Do think it is a coincidence that some of the texts in the Pyramid Texts resembled the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts?

    I seriously think need to get back into the real world instead of inventing conspiracy theories.
     
    #312 gnostic, May 24, 2019
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    You know you're still doing it? You are merely restating our positions without addressing my argument. Now I could spend half an hour finding and collating the evidence from Ancient language that shows the existence of ancient science but you wouldn't respond to it. You probably won't even give me your interpretation of why they used words like "observation", "perception", and "carapace" and had no words whatsoever to reflect opinion or belief. You just ignore this and say I don't understand science.

    This is nonsense that sounds like it was written by a mystic or shaman.

    "Science" can't be defined in modern language without mentioning little things like the scientific process and experiment design. It has no meaning outside of its definitions, axioms, and interpretations of experiment. Science is a process to learn about nature that works despite our beliefs and preconceptions because reality itself imposes itself on experiment. It is not magic and requires no intelligence to use or apply to technology from aircraft design to reverse engineering pyramids. The fact that we aren't using it is Egyptology should frighten the hell out of everyone. Yet you sit and tell me I don't understand science.
    And it doesn't disturb you one bit the the first things written down would have been the most important ideas to the inventors of writing. Where is it? Why is there nothing except artefacts and our estimations of stinky footed bumpkins?

    This is your opinion based on modern beliefs and Egyptology that refuses to apply science to the pyramids. Your belief is unevidenced and highly illogical. It is especially illogical in light of the fact that we can't duplicate any of the surviving artefacts.

    Of course they were ignorant. We know they had no technology and no science. How ignorant could they have been? People are just bending over backward to paint them as "noble savages" and avoiding bad words to describe them. Do you believe the builders knew that energy and matter were related? They didn't have any of the words like thought or the words we use to even make scientific statements like "probability", "in all likelihood", or "it is believed".

    In one breath you say they had no science and in the next you say they weren't ignorant. What you can't understand is that despite the fact that these statement in English are contradictory they are BOTH wrong and the opposite ideas are not contradictory from the perspective of the builders.

    Again, this is mysticism because without experiment there can be no modern science.

    A person can just "see" improvements in systems (invention) without science but this is an artefact of language in modern people.

    Again you ignore my argument and state your beliefs. You are simply gainsaying everything you actually address. I provide facts and logic and you ignore it. I show you the science and you ignore it while redefining what our science is. Of course you can't understand ancient science when you don't understand how our's works.

    How many times have you said this without a shred of logic or evidence to back it up?

    Everybody always makes sense in terms of their premises. I solved the PT in terms of this assumption using logic and natural law. Egyptologists solved the PT in terms of the book of the dead and the assumption the writers were moribund stinky footed bumpkins. You have a choice and you OBVIOUSLY have made it. But you have no logic and no evidence. You have no ability to make predictions as I DO.

    No!

    The CT derived from the Pyramid Texts and the book of the dead derived from the CT. But the change in species between them and the similar vocabulary masks the fact that it was a change in language that caused the change in species. Ancient people spoke Ancient Language and called themselves "Nephilim" and we call them Homo sapiens.

    Early Homo Omnisciencis knew the ancients were powerful and wise so they emulated them and loved all the writing to death. Ancient Language is not translatable but it still served as the basis of many things today, including religions.

    I seriously think your belief in conspiracies is getting pretty old. You merely trot this out because you have no argument.

    I added several new facts and logic to this post now you'll ignore those too.
     
  14. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,904
    Ratings:
    +3,952
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Ok, I am wrong.

    It isn’t merely a conspiracy theory. It is a deluded fantasy.

    Ancient Language, Tower of Babel, Ancient Science, the incessantly stupid ramp strawman, homo omnisciencis...and now this Nephilim.

    You sure knows how to pick a fricking rabbit hole to fall into. :rabbitface: The Mad Hatter will be proud of the webs you’ve spin.
     
  15. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    And you still claim it's a "conspiracy theory" despite the facts there are dozens of ideas that are unique to my theory or are uniquely spun from my theory.

    You ignore the fact that almost nobody agrees with dozens of parts of my theory. There is no record of anyone having proposed linear funiculars to build the pyramids and that these were derived from logic, physical evidence AND THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE WORDS OF THE VERY PEOPLE WHO BUILT THEM!!!

    The irony of saying I'm in a rabbit hole engaging in conspiracy theories is sublime since if I am in a rabbit hole I'm here alone and I don't even believe in "rabbits". "Rabbit" is a conspiracy that all confused language speakers must engage in to describe their world in terms others can understand. We all pretty much know when we see a "rabbit" and then we ignore the fact no two are alike and count them.

    Let me ask you this;

    If there were a different kind of language that made people wise and powerful and can't be translated how would you expect it to manifest after 4000 years of disuse? What evidence for it would you expect to see?

    I know you'll ignore it just like every other thought experiment, logic, and evidence I present.

    Considering the fact I propose this language used the same vocabulary and was highly scientific in nature how would you propose it be passed down to us? If such a language existed why woulds all its words like "babel", "nephilim", and "metaphysics" be forgotten entirely? Where would you look for clues to such a language and what techniques would you use to solve its meaning?

    You simply are refusing to consider facts and evidence and then you gainsay my argument without presenting anything other than opinion which I don't share.

    It's funny that I could have developed this whole theory without ever having debunked ramps, shown Egyptology used abysmal methodology, or shown the pyramids weren't tombs and still have most of it intact. But your beliefs all hang on the slender threads that science is magic and ancient people were superstitious. So of course you never even consider any of my questions while I answer all of yours. Of course my theory causes a lot of consternation so believers in ancient believing resort to personal attacks and camping out on the low road. They have no arguments but lots of obfuscation, semantics, smoke, and mirrors. Egyptological "proof" of their conclusions make a hollow argument based on appearances and their own preconceptions. They can't argue against this theory so they don't. They just hunker down and vote on reality without the evidence they refuse to gather or release. And you support this!
     
  16. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    And this should be pretty obvious as well; I get no support of any kind from religious people, despite the fact that my theory supports the Bible. A few scientific types support me and many engineers think I could be on to something. Making predictions should be pretty convincing.

    While I am a sort of fan of religion the fact is I say it's a confused version of ancient science and the Bible, Koran, etc are wholly misunderstood.

    I'm saying everyone is wrong but it looks like religious people take it a hundred times better than anyone who "believes" in science. Their beliefs get a little support while all of your's are raked over the coals.

    Here's another question to ignore; Why do scientists support Egyptology which refuses to do testing? It seems obvious many scientists either aren't aware of the situation or, like you, they believe science is magic performed by intelligent people.
     
  17. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,904
    Ratings:
    +3,952
    Religion:
    Pi π
    The only person I know who is saying ALL Egyptologists don’t know what they are talking but you do,
    1. a person who cannot read any language except English, and think he understand the Ancient Language,
    2. a person who is not archaeologists
      1. and don’t know the differences between the step pyramid design and the true pyramid design,
      2. a person who used “great pyramids”, when there are only one pyramid given the name “great”,
    3. a person who isn’t an engineer, and think there are secret codes in the Pyramid Texts that tells ONLY YOU know how the pyramids were built...

    ...then, yes, I would call these conspiracy theories.

    And btw, cladking, the only reason who spurted the rubbish “homo omnisciencis”, is YOU. You do get around.

    When I googled those words, I found only your name cladking on other forums and blogs with this deluded fantasy of yours.

    And even in those sites, people are questioning your fantasies and conspiracy theories.

    And you have presented no evidences of this imaginary Ancient Language or Ancient Science. All you have done is twisted words with your perverted semantics.

    How do you decipher code from untranslatable texts?

    You are the only one who think what the true meaning of the pyramid texts, when you yourself have read no other language other than English. That tell me you are deluded.
     
    #317 gnostic, May 25, 2019
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  18. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,801
    Ratings:
    +3,306
    Religion:
    Christian
    Natufian site excavated in Jordan.

    COPENHAGEN, DENMARK—According to a report in Seeker, researchers led by Tobias Richter of the University of Copenhagen have excavated a Natufian site in Jordan known as Shubayqa 1, which was occupied between 14,600 and 12,000 years ago. The early radiocarbon date for the site, obtained through accelerator mass spectrometry, suggests that Natufians lived across the region of the Levant earlier than had been previously thought, and adapted to a wide range of habitats.

    The site could also offer scientists information on the transition from hunting and gathering to farming. Richter said the people living at Shubayqa 1 domesticated dogs as early as 14,000 years ago, built one of the world’s earliest stone buildings, complete with a stone-paved floor, and produced art in the form of carved bone and stone figures.

    They also buried their dead. “Some have argued that this is evidence for the presence of ritual specialists—shamans—or some kind of group leaders,” Richter said. “What seems clear is that the Natufians had developed a complex symbolic cosmology and treated their dead with respect.” A stone-lined fire pit, and food remains from birds, gazelle, and tubers, vegetables, and wild cereals and legumes were also uncovered. For more, go to “Europe's First Farmers.”

    continued

    Natufian Site Excavated in Jordan - Archaeology Magazine
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    You simply choose to ignore what I say. Every single Egyptological assumption is wrong. Ancient people were not moribund, they were not changeless, they did not drag stones on ramps, and the pyramids were not tombs.

    All their assumptions are wrong. It's just this simple and you can't even address my arguments.

    As I've said many times; there are seven billion different languages and I can converse in a great many of them.

    If you understood our language and engineering you'd see there are two major types of pyramids; real pyramids I call "great pyramids" and tiny little piles of rubble that Egyptologists don't want to distinguish from real pyramids.

    Secret codes, huh? The builders themselves said they used "cool effervescent columns of water in the two boats tied together". You only believe this is a secret because Egyptologists don't speak English very goodly.

    If I'm right this will probably become the name of the species which arose from the dust of the tower of babel.

    Your pretending I've presented no evidence is not an argument.

    They said exactly what they meant literally. All you have to do is read it. It took me a while to solve each word in context and I might never finish.
     
  20. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    This is irrelevant and misinterpreted.

    The Pyramid Texts are SO OBVIOUSLY RITUAL that it's hard to believe Egyptology mistook it for incantation. There are dozens of clues I could show to prove the point but you'll ignore the post because it doesn't fit in with any of your beliefs.

    It is quite apparent that people who had no beliefs and no superstitions had MORE need of ritual rather than less. They didn't even think in a way we could recognize. Why wouldn't they have ritual? Why would they forget their dead? Why wouldn't they love the dearly departed?

    Beliefs are so strong today it interferes with even seeing the argument and the facts/ logic which support it.

    Shamans! Right! Some stinky footed scientist announces he don't need no data about infrared signatures to understand the pyramids and everyone laps it up like a dog with spilt milk. The priests of science don't even need experiment any longer because knowing everything has finally been perfected.
     
Loading...