[Keyblctt]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Aeson, dont move around too fast before you locate your spine Lifeforms capable of living on earth (genetically compatible with us to some extent since we were genetically engineered from them and homo erectus) who are living on a planet which at the outer reaches of it's orbit reaches ~440 astronomical units from the sun. That's one hell of a winter that lasts the better part of 3k years.

So they travel to earth to genetically engineer slaves (us) to mine gold for them so they can shield their atmosphere, because you know they need their atmosphere... and it's a really good thing they didn't need it until after they somehow developed interstellar transport and genetic engineering!

Of course they're mindless dolts since they think it's easier to come here, genetically engineer humans, and mine enough gold to shield their atmosphere, rather than to just come here and live somewhere hospitable.

The only interesting question this raises is how are you posting here without your brain Berzerker?

[Nurse_sero]

Lifeforms capable of living on earth (genetically compatible with us to some extent since we were genetically engineered from them and homo erectus) who are living on a planet which at the outer reaches of it's orbit reaches ~440 astronomical units from the sun. That's one hell of a winter that lasts the better part of 3k years. I've already said this is my problem with his theory, address what he says about the Enuma Elish and how it relates to what we see in the solar system. Whether they live on that planet or they come from somewhere else and told us about how things came to be, I dont know. But I do know ancient peoples had stories about how things came to be that are confirmed by science. I still keep an open mind about that problem, life forms here dont need light, just the internal heat of the Earth. Other life forms that do need light exist on all sorts of cycles, including very long cycles. It would be short-sighted to say life does or cannot exist under those conditions.

So they travel to earth to genetically engineer slaves (us) to mine gold for them Do you deny that the DNA evidence supports Sitchin? The Sumerians made these claims, Sitchin just looked at their records.

so they can shield their atmosphere, because you know they need their atmosphere... and it's a really good thing they didn't need it until after they somehow developed interstellar transport and genetic engineering! Why they needed it is not based on the Enuma Elish, its on Sitchin's interpretation of something else. Are you saying that because he's wrong on that he's wrong on everything else? I hope not, try applying that standard to yourself. You're arguing strawmen, I never said everything he claims is right nor did I try to argue in support of him on this aspect of his theory. You're avoiding what I have posted and bringing in his more dubious claims.

Of course they're mindless dolts since they think it's easier to come here, genetically engineer humans, and mine enough gold to shield their atmosphere, rather than to just come here and live somewhere hospitable. If we find gold on Mars in the future and we're running low here, dont ya think we'd go there and mine gold? Maybe they cant live here for very long, its called evolution.

The only interesting question this raises is how are you posting here without your brain Berzerker? The spine you found is made of straw. Address the topic of this thread, evidence for God - evidence of an ancient depiction of our solar system and a theory that claims ancient myths describe actual events in our solar system. You immediately ran away to look for other claims by Sitchin to attack the claims in this thread.

[drycleden]

except when you hop into my threads to not ignore me...

[beenBinybelia]

Yet that doesn't stop you from guessing at every other point. Am I guessing at the DNA evidence placing our common ancestors at an age Sitchin predicted back in the 70s? Spare me your BS, if you aren't going to back it up dont waste my time with illogical insults.

You mean ancient peoples had stories which in retrospect you find some vague similarities with some parts of modern understanding, and so you leap to the most obvious conclusion that aliens put us here! Is that cylinder seal a vague similarity? Not only does it show our solar system as described in the Enuma Elish, the artist even tried to show the planets relative sizes given the limited room he had to work with.

No one's saying that life has to form/exist in the same type of environment we do. You suggested life cant exist and evolve along a similar path on a 12th planet with that orbit. I dont know that, and you dont know that either. Skepticism is warranted, your behavior is not.

I'm mocking the idea of an alien race which is much like us forming in such circumstances... on a planet we have no evidence exists... who need gold from earth to shield their atmosphere... yet they somehow managed to developed to the point they could get to earth before being able to shield their atmosphere... and then they go to all the trouble to try to save their planet when they're obviously capable of just moving to earth and saving themselves a huge hassle. Which is a strawman, I'm not debating any of that. This thread is about the cylinder seal and the creation myths supported by modern science. So instead of just repeating your strawman, deal with the subject.

Introduce the "evidence" if you wish to discuss it. I'm not going to look into it for you. You dont even know about the DNA research placing our common ancestors ~250,000 years ago? I gotta link for ya? If you dont even know the subject why are you acting like a jackass?

Sumerians didn't make the claims. They have legends/myths, and people like Sitchin and you look to validate those myths by selectively picking tidbits from modern understanding and trying to prove the myth by "interpreting" it as if they knew what we do. They said what they said, you call them myths. The ignorant ramblings of primitive man... But science backs them up.

"Evil wind" = Nukes... obviously!

That isn't science. And you're still playing the strawman game. Where did I mention nukes?

I'm saying he's giving a laughable explaination on the specific points I mentioned. Yeah, points YOU mentioned, not points I mentioned. Thats the strawman. Instead of debating me you're debating strawmen and using your glorious victories as a platform to launch insults....

Are you saying you can't read? Because I was pretty clear about what points I was addressing. Nowhere did I say "everything Sitchin has ever said must be wrong" as you try to imply. I'm sure at some point in his life he probably said 2*2=4 (or something similar), which is quite correct. You're challenging the cylinder seal and what I've said by raising arguments I haven't mentioned. You're asking me to defend claims I may not even agree with instead of addressing the claims I am making. I can read, can you think?

The hillarious part is you claim I'm throwing up strawmen. That's so precious. You are, all you've said about the seal is you cant believe ancient people knew about the solar system. Everything else is about Sitchin's more dubious claims which I'm not even making. He's not here to defend himself so grow a spine and debate the points I'm making.

Why would I apply that standard to anyone? It's your imaginary standard. Its your standard, you're dismissing what Sitchin says about the subject matter because you find some of his other claims to be incredulous. Stop squirming around.

You're the one who ducked the issue. You haven't explained how the ancient cultures you claim had this knowledge achieved that knowledge. All you did was hint at Sitchin... who is laughable in describing how we got here. The title of this thread is evidence for God, who in the hell do you think I'm talking about? We've been arguing about ETs the whole time and you still dont know who I'm attributing this knowledge to?

Resource collection is perfectly reasonable if it is economically feasible due to technological advances. Assuming the resource collection from another planet is necessary for life to exist on the planet of those who will eventually collect the resources is silly though. If we had needed gold from Mars to survive, we'd have never gotten there to mine it. Or even evolved at all. Not true, gold is a finite resource and we can run out. If we did and we needed it and Mars had it, we'd be mining Mars.

So your whole "stick to the topic" is nothing but bullshit, because you specifically asked for my input on this specific topic. Yah, it's not what you wanted because I pointed out the first few points I ran across which are utter crap... so go running back to your "OMG they have dots around another dot". You didn't address the specific topic, you ran off to some site to look for Sitchin's more questionable claims and brought them back here for me to defend instead of debating the specific topic.

[Slintreeoost]

All this is very interesting but it still doesn't answer the Big question: who built the Great Pyramid and what lies beneath the Sphinx... And will Beauval ever locate the true location of Atlantis?

[nerohedfrs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Berz says **** like that all the time, actually. That's why I put him on ignore (that and all the other pseudoscience)... I know he does; I was paraphrasing one of his "theories" with the Aztec Atlantis bit. The Aztec word for water is "Atla" or something, so Atlantis might have been mesoamerican! To be fair, though, I have not yet heard him talk about Illuminati running Burger King. That one was all me.

[AdobeCreativeSuite]

We'll address that when you post what your evidence is. I already did

Post your evidence if you want me to address it. I'm not going to go try to find whatever the hell it is you're talking about to refute, because I simply don't know what the hell it is you're talking about. Seriously, you never heard about the DNA researchers finding the mitochondrial "Eve"? Google it, learn something about what we're debating.

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/

They have it at 200,000 years ago which fits well with Sitchin's estimate given an undetermined lag between the lower gods' rebellion and our eventual emergence. I see this as amazing, you'll probably

Asking me to disprove "evidence" you haven't presented yet is beyond retarded. I did post the evidence, you just didn't know anything about it.

It is extraordinarily vague. And what it's supposed to be a similarity to is debateable. So when you look in a textbook for a depiction of our solar system, you need the author to tell you its a depiction of our solar system? And you need it to scale?

The scales are so far off it's not even funny. You know how big Mercury would be if we start with a Sun that size? You wouldn't be able to see it with the naked eye. Not only that but there's no correllation to the size and arrangement of the dots depicted, and the actual arrangement of the solar system.

To just assume the Sumerians knew of planets they couldn't see (some of which we don't even know of either) based on some dots around a sun is ludicrous. Of course its out of scale, look at how much room the artist had to work with. You answered your own criticism, some of the planets wouldn't even appear if it was to scale. The artist wanted them to appear. My God, take a look at a textbook and you'll see its out of scale too. Sheesh! Anyone out there ever see a scale depiction of our solar system in a book? The artist had about a postage stamp size area to work with and you're complaining that it isn't scale?

Read what I said again. If you need help, go learn english. I offered a whole string of logic, which I found hillarious.

You want to take one factor from within the line of logic and pretend that matters, and then misinterpret it's context so that you can fit it into some imaginary argument that you've conjured to debate with. You do the same thing in debate as you do with your "evidence"... try to fit the facts to your theory.

I have never argued against the formation of life being possible in environments different than our own. Ive even argued the opposite on this forum in the past, that life doesn't have to be anything like us. This is the problem you're going to run into when you decide to try to mind-read to argue with me. You come up with patently false ideas about what my arguments are. Wow, all that just to admit you were wrong? Here is what you said after pointing out the same problem I already pointed out

The only interesting question this raises is how are you posting here without your brain Berzerker? I suggested it was possible for life to exist on that planet but I was skeptical. If I'm without a brain for saying that then you must believe life cant exist in that situation.

That's all you have to debate, because that's exactly what you asked of me and all I offered.

Of course you aren't debating what's been said. You're using Sitchin's more questionable claims to attack his claims about the Enuma Elish and the creation stories. Now I haven't been debating whats been said? Wtf!

My posts are about whatever the hell I want them to be. When you address my posts, and ask me what I mean, you're extending that line of discussion. So don't cry when you get what you ask for. It's pathetic. I didn't ask you to avoid the subject nor did I ask you to run off and look for a different subject matter you find easier to criticize. I asked you to explain why Sitchin's work on the Enuma Elish and creation - the subject - is Instead of answering you went off and gathered straw.

Yes, they are myths.

Myths aren't ignorant ramblings in my estimation. Don't let reality get in your way though, just keep mind-reading. I see, you meant "they are myths" in a good way?

Sumerians didn't make the claims. They have legends/myths Huh? They did make the claims in their "myths", sure sounds like you dont consider myths to be worthy of consideration. I didn't either 20 years ago.

I'm still making fun of Sitchin. And he claims the "evil wind" the Sumerians talked about were nukes. That isn't in the Enuma Elish and not in this thread, its your strawman.

If you didn't want the topic to be "make fun of Sitchin" you probably shouldn't have asked me what I found funny about Sitchin. I didn't ask what you found funny about Sitchin, I asked what was funny about Sitchin wrt the subject matter. You ran off and found something else to critiicize.

I am debating the points you're making. You're too dense to understand what our discussion actually is about, and so you keep making yourself look like a fool. No, you're debating gold in the atmosphere etc.

Quote me where I said everything that Sitchin says is wrong. You can't do it, because it's something you've just made up to refute. That's why your *****ing about strawmen is so precious. Of course not, people with double standards dont admit they exist. I never asked you to run off and find claims made by Sitchin that aren't even in my posts. You came back with your strawmen as proof Sitchin is a nutcase. If that isn't a backhanded way of avoiding the subject and dismissing his other claims, what is it?

I know who you're attributing the knowledge to. I just want you to come out and say it so we can all laugh at you for the fundamentally flawed logic you use to support that claim. I said it in the title of thread, you aint too bright are ya? But where is this fundamentally flawed logic? I've been trying to get you to debate the scientific evidence and all you can do is and throw around insults. Oh yeah, you didn't even know about DNA research into human origins. Do you need a link to NASA so you can see what the solar system looks like?

I see I'll have to spell it out for you, so here goes: Changing your illogical argument is not spelling it out for me

How were these ETs protecting their atmosphere, something they need to do to survive the conditions on their planet (which have always been the conditions on their planet) while they were developing the technology to protect their atmosphere? How did they develope as lifeforms on this planet in the first place?

And most importantly... what evidence do you have to support your answers to those questions? First, thats another theory, if you want answers read his explanation. You appear to be so delusional you think your strawmen are actually my arguments. I can speculate though, maybe the gold is naturally occurring and they need to supplement it to prevent drastic changes in the ebb and flow. Or maybe the gold enhances an otherwise deteriorating situation, like us intentionally pumping stuff into the atmosphere to help the ozone protect us. Maybe Sitchin made a mistake in his interpretation. Who knows? I didn't ask you to change the subject...

I said: "I just looked up Sitchin's theory... "

You responded: "Aeson, do you have something to refute his theory about our solar system? Kinda hard to defend a theory against "

You asked for me to expound upon points I was laughing at Sitchin for, and now are whining because I did what you asked.

You're hillarious. You didn't expound on his theory, you ran off and found another theory to attack.

[ZAtlLVos]

yeah, but with Sitchin you can have it both ways - evolution and creation are both valid

[JonnTEN]

It is interesting that we have evidence of homo erectus in Indonesia up until 60-70,000 years ago. The species remained in virtual stasis for well over a million years and then all of a sudden archaic humans followed by modern people arrive on the scene. Something caused a jump in evolution in a select group of the population, one helluva mutation. If Neandertals are an offshoot of Erectus from about 5-700,000 ya, they developed large brains but thats about the only family "resemblance" we share. I wonder if that can be explained by climate differences. Maybe mammoth bones are bulked up like Neandertal bones.

Its looking like the "Hobbits" of Flores Cave, living as recently as the end of the ice age (10-12K) are part of an early erectus migration out of Africa up to 800K ago. The flooding of the Sunda Shelf and arrival of modern humans may have crowded them out, but the people in that region claim they were alive as recently as 1 or 2 centuries ago. They have "myths" about the little people

[NikitahDE]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Seriously, you never heard about the DNA researchers finding the mitochondrial "Eve"? Google it, learn something about what we're debating.

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/

They have it at 200,000 years ago which fits well with Sitchin's estimate given an undetermined lag between the lower gods' rebellion and our eventual emergence. I see this as amazing, you'll probably Well I did laugh, because that's exactly what I wanted you to say. (Perhaps you can understand how I wasn't sure what you were talking about now, as you've "corrected" yourself about how long ago it was. 250k is stretching it quite a ways, especially when 200k is actually towards the higher end of the estimate, 140k being towards the lower end.)

Mitochondrial "Eve" is the most recent common ancestor of those living today, through the matriarchal line. That means that everyone living today can trace their ancestry back to "mEve". It doesn't mean that "mEve" was the first woman, or even the only woman living at the time. It just means that over time her matriarchal line has become the matriarchal line in all lines.

Just to illustrate the sillyness of using mtMRCA as proof of genetic mutation 250k years ago by aliens, the MRCA on the male side is from much later in the timeline. "mAdam" lived around 80k years ago.

And the MRCA (traced back through both parents) could be as recent as 3k years ago.

MRCA really doesn't mean anything in the context you're trying to present it. You see a date and think it corresponds to some preconceived notion, but that's because you don't understand what it means.

I did post the evidence, you just didn't know anything about it. I know far more about it than you do. I just needed you to specifically state what the hell it was you were talking about because there is more than one type of MRCA out there.

(I find it hillarious that you're bringing up MRCA after all your "stay on topic of solar system formation" ranting though... thanks.)

So when you look in a textbook for a depiction of our solar system, you need the author to tell you its a depiction of our solar system? And you need it to scale? If I look at a textbook about the solar system, I expect to find accurate information about the solar system. I'm not going there for pictures.

When I look at that glyph, I don't see accurate information about the solar system... so why should I assume it is a more accurate description of the solar system than our current knowledge today? More importantly, if it doesn't resemble the solar system much at all, why should I assume the dots are all planets (except the moon... cause the moon is "special") and none of them are instead stars? Why leap to the conclusion that they must have known about planets that we have no reason to suspect they could know about?

Of course its out of scale, look at how much room the artist had to work with. You answered your own criticism, some of the planets wouldn't even appear if it was to scale. Maybe they are there and you just can't see them.

The artist wanted them to appear. Obviously the artist wanted the shapes to appear. The question is what did the artist mean for them to represent.

I suggested it was possible for life to exist on that planet but I was skeptical. If I'm without a brain for saying that then you must believe life cant exist in that situation. By saying "how are you posting here without your brain" I was mocking you for asking why I'd at Sitchin.

Now I'm mocking you for still not being able to figure that out even though I keep telling you exactly what it was I was at.

Oh... and I'm also mocking you for claiming that I said "how are you posting here without your brain" in reply to your defense of life on the hypothetical planet, when the quote you are referencing was in the same post as when I introduced the reference to that planet into this thread.



You're using Sitchin's more questionable claims to attack his claims about the Enuma Elish and the creation stories. I was laughing at Sitchin. You asked why and called me spineless for not wanting to go into it with you. So I told you why I was laughing.

Now you're crying that I told you. Priceless.

Now I haven't been debating whats been said? Wtf! You keep quoting me and then trying to debate something I haven't said. So... yep.

I see, you meant "they are myths" in a good way? Nothing wrong with myths. They can be quite interesting, and helpful in understanding ancient cultures.

Huh? They did make the claims in their "myths", sure sounds like you dont consider myths to be worthy of consideration. They're worth consideration, but have to be taken in context of how they are offered. Working from our understanding of the solar system and then interpreting their myths to try to fit them to our modern understanding is not proper science.

I didn't ask what you found funny about Sitchin, I asked what was funny about Sitchin wrt the subject matter. Nope. You said:

"Aeson, do you have something to refute his theory about our solar system?"

If you meant "creation of our solar system" you should have been more specific. Because what happens here on Earth between a race of ETs from another planet that's supposedly out there in our solar system sure as hell is something about our solar system.

I said it in the title of thread, you aint too bright are ya? I said, "You haven't explained how the ancient cultures you claim had this knowledge achieved that knowledge."

And your reply to that was ETs, and now you're claiming that was in the title of the thread. (Evidence For "God")

You haven't even begun to explain how the ETs got here, why they came, where they went, and give evidence for all of that.

But where is this fundamentally flawed logic? In your methodology. You take facts and try to fit them to your theory, forgetting what the facts mean or changing interpretations and perspectives to try to make them fit with your preconceived notions. That isn't science.

I've been trying to get you to debate the scientific evidence and all you can do is and throw around insults. Stop *****ing about insults, it's your own fault you're in this mess. If you wanted a friendly discussion you shouldn't have kicked it off by calling me spineless.

Oh yeah, you didn't even know about DNA research into human origins. I asked you to expound upon what research it was you were refering to. Because you know (well, you don't)... there's more to MRCA DNA research than just mtMRCA.

You clearly don't even know what the DNA research you're relying on means, yet are trying to make fun of me for not automatically knowing what you were talking about with your incorrect reference to it.

Do you need a link to NASA so you can see what the solar system looks like? Your analogy is flawed. You were referencing something specific within a field, without specifying what. It's like if you were asking for discussion about a planet, but not telling us which one it was. I asked for clarification, to which you proceeded to throw a hissy fit.

I can speculate though, maybe the gold is naturally occurring and they need to supplement it to prevent drastic changes in the ebb and flow. Or maybe the gold enhances an otherwise deteriorating situation, like us intentionally pumping stuff into the atmosphere to help the ozone protect us. Maybe Sitchin made a mistake in his interpretation. Who knows? That's my point. It's all just unsupported speculation. Invisible Unicorn stuff.

I didn't ask you to change the subject... You made arguments in regards to those subjects. I'm not just going to drop them because you claim you want to stay on topic. If you want to stay on one topic, don't keep arguing on the topics you don't wish to discuss.

[sam]

Wrong! It's the 12 Lords of Kobol, surrounding the 13th who lead his people to Earth ten thousand years ago.

[ChexEcodece]

As for the seal itself... (since I ran into this while checking my references for that last post)

The Sumerians depict the Sun (or sun god Shamash) as a disk with lines inside it. They depict important stars as having points (6-8). Here's an example of the Star, Moon, and Sun symbols: I already responded to Sandman's source, looks like I gotta repeat what I said because you're so good at reading.

The star does not represent a star, it represents Ishtar and her planet was Venus - the 8th planet. The Sumerian Mars was identified by a 6 pointed star and it is the 6th planet. Those 3 symbols represent 3 deities - Inanna/Ishtar (Venus), Sin (the Moon god), and Utu/Shamash (the Sun god). These 3 deities were kin and worship of one usually translated into worship of all three, hence their common grouping.

They also knew of "wandering stars", planets. Those they have names for are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. Interestingly enough, they didn't even think of the earth as a "wandering star". Because the Earth is the platform from which they watched planets "wander" - traveling in "retrograde" as we pass by them on the inside. So what are these names?

The explanations I've run across so far are that it may be a depiction of a certain star associated with a god of harvest, or Venus passing through the Pleiades, or the divine counsel of 12 Gods with Anu as the central figure.

It is a star though, and not the Sun. Well then we have a problem, you see, the Pleiades were supposedly represented by 7 ~equally sized dots in two rows of 3 and 4.

[GWRIeEQp]

[ZesePreodaNed]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I already responded to Sandman's source, looks like I gotta repeat what I said because you're so good at reading. You can't just rehash Sitchin and pretend it validates what Sitchin said.

One thing from that post that needs to be addressed though:

But consider this, after traveling to Egypt and Mesopotamia, Democritus told his fellow Greeks that there are more planets than can be seen with the naked eye. Democritus proposed that other stars were actually like our Sun, and that they had planets as well. He wasn't talking about planets orbiting our Sun. He was talking about planets orbiting around other stars.

The star does not represent a star, it represents Ishtar and her planet was Venus - the 8th planet. The Sumerian Mars was identified by a 6 pointed star and it is the 6th planet. Those 3 symbols represent 3 deities - Inanna/Ishtar (Venus), Sin (the Moon god), and Utu/Shamash (the Sun god). These 3 deities were kin and worship of one usually translated into worship of all three, hence their common grouping. The symbol in your seal is a 6 pointed star. So you are saying it is Mars?

Because the Earth is the platform from which they watched planets "wander" - traveling in "retrograde" as we pass by them on the inside. Yes, it was viewed differently than the wandering stars. In fact, Sumerian astronomy was geocentric. So they certainly wouldn't have represented the solar system as revolving around the Sun.

So what we're left with is:

- It's not the Sun in the center.
- They wouldn't have put the Sun in the center anyways.

So what are these names? As you know they associated known solar bodies with gods. Here are the associations:

Moon - Nanna
Sun - Utu

Mercury - Enki
Venus - Inanna
Mars - Nergal
Jupiter - Enlil
Saturn - Ninurta

I know you want desperately for us to accept that because they had 12 deities in their pantheon (this is incorrect) that they must have known about 12 solar bodies, but that just doesn't hold up (even if it were correct). They had different ways of grouping the deities in their pantheon:

- 4 Primary deities. An, Enki, Enlil, Ninhursag.

- 7 as those "who decree fate". An, Enki, Enlil, Ninhursag likely included. (Though some would just use the 7 known solar bodies listed above.)

- 12 in their divine counsel. An, Ashur, Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Inanna, Utu, Nanna, Ninurta, Sherida, Utu, Sherida.

- Many more gods and demi-gods that didn't make these particular special groups.

Why should we jump to the conclusion that because we have 12 in the divine counsel that there must be 12 solar bodies? Why not 4? Or 7? Or one for every deity? Why should the number of Gods even be considered in the first place? They didn't even group the 7 to correspond to visible solar bodies as far as we know, as Ninhursag represents the earth (which was not considered the same as the wandering planets, Moon, or Sun), and An was never given a solar body to represent.

Well then we have a problem, you see, the Pleiades were supposedly represented by 7 ~equally sized dots in two rows of 3 and 4. That's just one theory I ran across. I notice you don't address the other theories.

The reason I gave multiple theories is because no one knows for sure what those dots are meant to represent because it's not something that we have an explanation for. (Whereas we have Sumerian astronomical charts which don't include Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto or any other hypothetical planets.) The text on the seal doesn't reference what the star represented is, or what the dots around it are supposed to represent (if anything specific).

[Jeaxatoem]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Accusing me of not knowing about the DNA based on words you put in my mouth. Let's see...

Originally posted by Berzerker
The myth also says female "goddesses" were used to produce human babies but they grew tired and eventually humans with the ability to procreate were produced. We'll see if the male lineage stands up, but it doesn't refute the myth - it supports it. Our common mother goes back further than our common father. This is a good illustration of how you've misinterpreted the meaning of MRCA. Here you are representing the later occurance of y-chromosome MRCA as being supporting evidence that there were no fathers at a point in time when there were mothers, while in reality it has nothing to do with whether there were fathers before that point in time.

[Necedofer]

Kid, I made it up. Do you not wonder why we're here? There must be a purpose for all this fuss... and it may be separating the wheat from the chaff. It might be that searching for answers is more interesting than having them, it may be to populate the fish tank, or to wonder or worship or tend the garden...and if its to tend the garden we'll be out a job as soon as the first wave of our replacements arrive.

Berzerker Keep thinking.