Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

You are getting a bit off topic.Please try to stick with the thread's main subjects.

Hi Djufo,It's impossible to tell the difference between your claims and fiction. Things that are true are supported by evidence, and you can't seem to find any for anything you claim.--Percy

In other words, you have no way of knowing whether the Sumerians were right or wrong about a large planet beyond the Oort cloud, and thus the claim, if there even is description of such a planet on a tablet is not evidence of anything. I take it from your waffling that you cannot explain why the number of planets you claim the Sumerians depicted does not seem to match the actual solar system.Which is really the point of my question. You've more than answered it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Because of how Neptune and Pluto were discovered. You have a most amusing paranoia. And believe an amusing fantasy.If you want to convince anyone that your paranoid fantasy world is valid, you need to provide some objective empirical evidence for it.Enjoy

Good. I agree with you, because you're thinking out of the box. And I give to you the same example I gave before to somebody else. Based on that critical thinking, Why should all of us "believe" that George Washington and the founding fathers really existed? Do we "believe" just as a common social agreement, or is it that we have his body mummified somewhere for all of us to see? At the end of the day, any "proof" we have is the word of men. But is it the word of men absolutely accurate? Just like in this case the information provided by ancient civilizations? George Washington and the Founding fathers could have perfectly been a mythology created during the times of the revolutionary war. People were severely stressed, fighting for their lives, in horrible conditions, as a way to unify, motivate they could have perfectly created this higher group of beings called the founding fathers. And this is very possible the view of the future generations could have about them. We "believe" today they existed because after all, it just happened a few hundred years ago. In historical time that's yesterday. But as civilization age, should the view of Americans 3,000 years in the future be the same? will they question the birth of that ancient nation?
Exactly the same process of critical thinking and logic applies to ancient civilizations and the information they gave us. We question everything they said. Do we earn that right because we are thousands of years ahead? Does time and technology justify erasing history and attempting to rewrite it? All this is the philosophical phenomenon we should put in the table before insulting ourselves stating that we are cousins of moneys and nothing more.

Well, it does match the solar system. The 9 planets are there, plus the moon, the sun, and an x planet. In fact, Uranus for example was know to the Sumerians as "mash.sig" meaning "bright greenish" Mythology. True. Since we can't see Uranus with our naked eyes to say that is bright green. However, when the voyager 2 passed by in the 70's, "scientists" in their brilliant majesty discovered that Uranus is "bright greenish" Their brains probably collapsed at that point but they quickly stopped talking about it.As you said, there is no way to know if sumerians were right or wrong about a large planet beyond the oort cloud. However, that does not means they are automatically wrong. In the last few decades there has been a huge interest by NASA and the Vatican to deploy infrared spectrum telescopes in orbit. Do we have open access to see through those telescopes and point them where we need 24/7? No. All of you probably don't remember what happened with Telescope Iras in 1983 And the news of the discovery of a large body outside of the inner solar system.

If the list of planets includes Pluto, as you have already indicated, then we know already that there are more planets than you've listed in your current post. So there is no match. It is simply not possible to list nine planets of the solar system as there are multiple known trans-Neptunian object besides Pluto. Include Pluto, and you must include the larger Eris and at least Makemake as well.There are also moons in the solar system that are larger than Earth's moon. What's the point of ignoring them?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Because of the evidence of George Washington and the founding fathers. No, there is no evidence of this, and literally tons of evidence of the details of all their lives.Evidence is how we figure out what is true about the real world. If you have any evidence for anything you're claiming about the Sumerians and the rest, now would be a good time to begin describing it.--Percy

A true-color photograph of Uranus. Note that it is not "bright green" because you made that up.Is there anything you're not wrong about?

Amusing. But nonsense.It turns out Uranus can actually be viewed with the naked eye, and certainly with binoculars. Beyond that of course it is easily visible in any telescope that isn't a toy. Amateur astronomers report the color as blue to blue-greens.The Position of Uranus in the Night Sky: 2019 to 2032
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201106050839...So, wrong about the color being a surprise and the collapsing brains, wrong about Uranus being not visible to the naked eye, and ignoring that it is visible through telescopes. What else? Voyager was launched in the late 70s, but the fly by of Uranus was in the mid 80s. Wrong again.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is debunked Planet X bullshit. The original conjectures were proven wrong long ago. If a planet had been discovered why would they have covered up the discovery. Also, there have been new satellites and new telescope arrays that could detect such a planet since then. Is this a worldwide conspiracy?
Do you have nothing but pseudo-scientific crap?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

To be fair, a discussion with the title of "Age of mankind, dating, and the flood" is almost bound to go haywire at some point. At least, imo. In one of the early posts, we had "biblical scholars dating the flood at 4300 BC" if memory serves me correctly. We might have had people who read the Bible and believe it to be literally true dating the flood at 4300 BCE, but to call them "scholars" is exceedingly generous and in fact illustrates the problem of discussions of this sort. It would be like trying to use scientific dating to determine the date that Prometheus gave fire to mankind. Things are going to go seriously haywire.

The solar system bodies that could have been seen without a telescope by ancient astronomers were the Sun, the Moon, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. Neptune is magnitude 7.8, and beyond the range of even the sharpest human eyesight. Pluto is smaller than the Moon, and should never have been classified as a planet; it is 14th magnitude at best, and needs a fair-sized telescope to see at all. I have never seen Pluto, not even with a 14" telescope, so the Sumerians could not possibly have known about it.There is good evidence that at least one of the satellites of Jupiter (probably Ganymede, or two satellites close together) has been seen with the naked eye. All four Galilean satellites are brighter than 6th magnitude, and in principle they could be seen without a telescope, but the brightness of Jupiter itself puts them out.Titan (Saturn's largest satellite) is magnitude 8.4, and cannot be seen without a telescope. The asteroid Vesta is sometimes visible with the naked eye; however, I have never heard of Ceres being seen without binoculars or a telescope.Adding this up, we reach a possible total of ten bodies, the seven planets from Mercury to Uranus, the Moon, Ganymede, and Vesta. Of course, we must not forget comets, which can be spectacular although temporary visitors to the night sky.

Lots of good information in you post, Astrophile. (And I like the handle).What was being foisted here was the idea that the Sumerians had some knowledge of the solar system that must have come from some space travelers. I think you've given a good summary about what could have been seen from earth. So the question is what if anything more can we make a case that a space traveler flying inbound towards earth would have provided that could not be seen from earth. I'm suggesting that the number nine is very difficult to come by for the space traveler.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.