Hi.....you are correct when you say that this article does not refer to Cleopatra VII, but to Cleopatra I Syra. Cleopatra I Syra translates to Cleopatra the Syrian. She was the daughter of Antiochus III The Great (King of the Seleucid Empire) and Laodice III (Queen of the Seleucid Empire), therefore Cleopatra I was a princess of the Seleucid Empire. Cleopatra I was to become the Queen of the Ptolemaic Empire when she married Ptolemaic King Ptolemy V Epiphanes. This stele dates to the reign of Cleopatra I Syra's husband, Ptolemaic King Ptolemy V Ephiphanes, who reigned from 204-181 BC. Cleopatra I Syra didn't live to be very old in life; being born in 204 BC and passing away sometime between 178-176 BC. Therefore, she only lived to be 26 to 28 years of age before she passed away. She was promised to Ptolemy V Ephiphanes as his wife by her father in 195 BC as a peace offering between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties. The engagement occurred when she was 8 years old and Ptolemy V Ephiphanes was 14 years old. Their marriage took place in 193 BC when Cleopatra I Syra was 10 years old and Ptolemy V Ephiphanes was 16 years old. The couple went on to have two sons and one daughter. Their children were Ptolemy VII born in 186 BC, Cleopatra II born sometime between 187-185 BC, and Ptolemy VIII born in 184 BC. Ptolemy V Ephiphanes died in 180 BC when he was around 29 years old and Cleopatra I Syra was about 23 years old. She went on to rule jointly with her 6 year old son, Ptolemy VII, after the death of her husband. She would not rule very long with her son; she would only rule with her son 2 to 4 years before her death. The exact cause of her death is unknown. Cleopatra's descendants through her children would continue to reign over the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires for a long time after her death.
I also stopped drinking milk a few years ago and noticed improvements in my health. However I still can’t get rid of cheese and eat it from time to time, as rare as i can
When I remove all the propaganda-generated weaponized words and the contemptuous disdain for Christianity, it seems like your basic point is “The confusion most likely stems from a philosophically monotheistic culture attempting to understand a pantheistic theology.”
Maybe his purpose is to be a mystery? Mysterious things are humbling, for one...they remind us humans that we do not, in fact, know everything; this is healthy in general, but particularly so from a spiritual standpoint. Mysterious things also lead to questioning, a quest for knowledge and understanding….it sets the feet of the initiate on the path.
Who is selling the land to the foreign companies? This is the question I almost never see addressed in articles like this. I understand that “corporations” are almost universally despised, and everyone is happy to assign them the status of villain—which is fine, they often deserve it, IMO—but still, corporations are businesses. They don’t just roll into a foreign country like an invading power and take land...someone somewhere is selling them the land, or leasing it to them, or something. If it isn’t legitimate, then it is the fault of the people doing the selling or leasing. They are the ones stealing land from indigenous populations for money. Not the corporations.
Also, it’s hard to view what these companies want to do as a bad thing. Plant crops? Build hydroelectric power plants, which are arguably the most environmentally friendly of all possible large-scale power sources? Grow biofuels??
Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but this article seems to miss the point several times over, blames the wrong people, fails to mention the people actually responsible, and deplores the possibility of actually allowing a “developing nation” to freakin’ develop.
While I don’t disagree with your basic point, I think there are other ways to look at it that we should keep in mind.
You said, “I read about the chances of spontaneous self replication with enough zeros to go around the block...” This is an important point; as you say, there are enough zeros to go around the block. Basically what that means is, even when all the necessary elements are present and the environment is calm and non-destructive—the proverbial “primordial soup” cooked to perfection, in other words—the likelyhood of the most basic elements of life arising spontaneously is extremely close to zero.
A good rule of thumb for translating probability calculations to the real world is, the lower the probability of a given event, the longer the span of time necessary to allow for it to occur. Probability calculations are made without considering duration, so the number is telling you the probability that something will occur at any given moment—in the case of the spontaneous formation of life, that probability is extremely low even in favorable circumstances. But once you factor in a time dimension, you see that even for the most improbable of events, the more time that passes without the event occurring, the more probable it becomes that it will occur. When considering the improbability of the spontaneous formation of life, all those zeros stretching around the block are telling us that a very long time span is needed in order for such an extremely improbable event to become probable. After that, if more time passes without the event taking place, it actually becomes more and more improbable that it won’t happen.
What’s interesting in the case of life on earth is the fact that no such large time span seems to have taken place. The first, most rudimentary life forms appeared here almost as soon as the earth had cooled and solidified from its original formation. This is why Francis Crick, one of the original discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA, speculated on the idea of “directed panspermia”, which says that the “production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life-forms using space travel technology.”
That’s something to think about. It would also explain why any alien visitors would be visiting—we’re all part of the same cosmic family, having all had the same genetic great-to-the-Nth-degree grandparents.
Another thing to keep in mind is the various evolutionary “explosions” which appear to be present within the fossil record. While not nearly as improbable as the spontaneous formation of DNA, the evolution of entirely new species from more rudimentary life-forms is still extremely improbable. As such, one would expect large spans of time would be necessary in order for such a thing to take place. But again, that isn’t what appears to have happened in many cases. The record seems to show long periods of time where almost no evolutionary development at all takes place. Then there is a cataclysmic event that wipes out a lot of life on earth—a mass extinction—followed by an ”explosion” of hundreds or thousands of entirely new species which seem to show up all at once….followed by another long period of very little evolutionary development. (One of these is known as the “Cambrian Explosion”, for instance.) This seems to suggest that something other than mere chance is involved in the development of life, at least here on earth.
That’s my two cents. Great topic of conversation, by the way….have enjoyed reading the thread and everyone’s views on this subject.
Hi Irene. Thank you for your nice comments! If you register with the website that’s all you need to receive the newsletter. Just follow the link on the top menu.
I think it is also very interesting that Yggdrasil can be seen as a metaphor for the axis of the earth, coming from very ancient knowledge of the astronomical phenomenon of precession. This and many other similar world-tree and earth-navel mythologies are compared and discussed in a book called Hamlet's Mill.
Is it the "milk of Mother Earth" though? I think it's interesting how many of the creation myths describe an act of procreation, of fertilization, eggs and semen, etc., which results in life. The Earth is the Mother, who is the Father? Helios, perhaps? The Sun god...in other words, stars.
Elements all the way up to iron (Fe) are created in the stellar fusion process. Higher elements are generated in the intense energetic environments of novas and supernovas, which could be likened to the spasm of ejaculation.…
Once you stop laughing, perhaps consider another possibility:
I'd like to see more on this subject as well. It is fascinating. There are several other articles here that discuss ancient humanity's use of and reverence for "sky metal".
Have you ever gone hiking in the wilderness? Try going in a straight line, no matter what obstacle lies in the way. You'll quickly find that attempting to do so is not only extremely difficult in certain places, it is also incredibly dangerous. A deviation of tens of meters to go around certain features is much more preferrable to risking death or major injury just to keep the path straight.
Yes. It can be done with relatively simple physical tools. The mental or conceptual tools required are not as simple, however. Math. Astrogation. Orienteering. Et cetera.....
I'm not saying ancient man was incapable of understanding those concepts. However, I do think they do not arise without context.
That is what makes sites such as this so interesting, imo.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Hi.....you are correct when you say that this article does not refer to Cleopatra VII, but to Cleopatra I Syra. Cleopatra I Syra translates to Cleopatra the Syrian. She was the daughter of Antiochus III The Great (King of the Seleucid Empire) and Laodice III (Queen of the Seleucid Empire), therefore Cleopatra I was a princess of the Seleucid Empire. Cleopatra I was to become the Queen of the Ptolemaic Empire when she married Ptolemaic King Ptolemy V Epiphanes. This stele dates to the reign of Cleopatra I Syra's husband, Ptolemaic King Ptolemy V Ephiphanes, who reigned from 204-181 BC. Cleopatra I Syra didn't live to be very old in life; being born in 204 BC and passing away sometime between 178-176 BC. Therefore, she only lived to be 26 to 28 years of age before she passed away. She was promised to Ptolemy V Ephiphanes as his wife by her father in 195 BC as a peace offering between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties. The engagement occurred when she was 8 years old and Ptolemy V Ephiphanes was 14 years old. Their marriage took place in 193 BC when Cleopatra I Syra was 10 years old and Ptolemy V Ephiphanes was 16 years old. The couple went on to have two sons and one daughter. Their children were Ptolemy VII born in 186 BC, Cleopatra II born sometime between 187-185 BC, and Ptolemy VIII born in 184 BC. Ptolemy V Ephiphanes died in 180 BC when he was around 29 years old and Cleopatra I Syra was about 23 years old. She went on to rule jointly with her 6 year old son, Ptolemy VII, after the death of her husband. She would not rule very long with her son; she would only rule with her son 2 to 4 years before her death. The exact cause of her death is unknown. Cleopatra's descendants through her children would continue to reign over the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires for a long time after her death.
I also stopped drinking milk a few years ago and noticed improvements in my health. However I still can’t get rid of cheese and eat it from time to time, as rare as i can
I found it here if anyone is interested:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwr4zw_america-unearthed-great-lakes-copper-heist_shortfilms
When I remove all the propaganda-generated weaponized words and the contemptuous disdain for Christianity, it seems like your basic point is “The confusion most likely stems from a philosophically monotheistic culture attempting to understand a pantheistic theology.”
If that is what you meant, I agree.
Maybe his purpose is to be a mystery? Mysterious things are humbling, for one...they remind us humans that we do not, in fact, know everything; this is healthy in general, but particularly so from a spiritual standpoint. Mysterious things also lead to questioning, a quest for knowledge and understanding….it sets the feet of the initiate on the path.
Who is selling the land to the foreign companies? This is the question I almost never see addressed in articles like this. I understand that “corporations” are almost universally despised, and everyone is happy to assign them the status of villain—which is fine, they often deserve it, IMO—but still, corporations are businesses. They don’t just roll into a foreign country like an invading power and take land...someone somewhere is selling them the land, or leasing it to them, or something. If it isn’t legitimate, then it is the fault of the people doing the selling or leasing. They are the ones stealing land from indigenous populations for money. Not the corporations.
Also, it’s hard to view what these companies want to do as a bad thing. Plant crops? Build hydroelectric power plants, which are arguably the most environmentally friendly of all possible large-scale power sources? Grow biofuels??
Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but this article seems to miss the point several times over, blames the wrong people, fails to mention the people actually responsible, and deplores the possibility of actually allowing a “developing nation” to freakin’ develop.
While I don’t disagree with your basic point, I think there are other ways to look at it that we should keep in mind.
You said, “I read about the chances of spontaneous self replication with enough zeros to go around the block...”
This is an important point; as you say, there are enough zeros to go around the block. Basically what that means is, even when all the necessary elements are present and the environment is calm and non-destructive—the proverbial “primordial soup” cooked to perfection, in other words—the likelyhood of the most basic elements of life arising spontaneously is extremely close to zero.
A good rule of thumb for translating probability calculations to the real world is, the lower the probability of a given event, the longer the span of time necessary to allow for it to occur. Probability calculations are made without considering duration, so the number is telling you the probability that something will occur at any given moment—in the case of the spontaneous formation of life, that probability is extremely low even in favorable circumstances. But once you factor in a time dimension, you see that even for the most improbable of events, the more time that passes without the event occurring, the more probable it becomes that it will occur.
When considering the improbability of the spontaneous formation of life, all those zeros stretching around the block are telling us that a very long time span is needed in order for such an extremely improbable event to become probable. After that, if more time passes without the event taking place, it actually becomes more and more improbable that it won’t happen.
What’s interesting in the case of life on earth is the fact that no such large time span seems to have taken place. The first, most rudimentary life forms appeared here almost as soon as the earth had cooled and solidified from its original formation. This is why Francis Crick, one of the original discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA, speculated on the idea of “directed panspermia”, which says that the “production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life-forms using space travel technology.”
That’s something to think about. It would also explain why any alien visitors would be visiting—we’re all part of the same cosmic family, having all had the same genetic great-to-the-Nth-degree grandparents.
Another thing to keep in mind is the various evolutionary “explosions” which appear to be present within the fossil record. While not nearly as improbable as the spontaneous formation of DNA, the evolution of entirely new species from more rudimentary life-forms is still extremely improbable. As such, one would expect large spans of time would be necessary in order for such a thing to take place.
But again, that isn’t what appears to have happened in many cases. The record seems to show long periods of time where almost no evolutionary development at all takes place. Then there is a cataclysmic event that wipes out a lot of life on earth—a mass extinction—followed by an ”explosion” of hundreds or thousands of entirely new species which seem to show up all at once….followed by another long period of very little evolutionary development. (One of these is known as the “Cambrian Explosion”, for instance.)
This seems to suggest that something other than mere chance is involved in the development of life, at least here on earth.
That’s my two cents. Great topic of conversation, by the way….have enjoyed reading the thread and everyone’s views on this subject.
The impact of seasonal changes is demonstrated in the expressions of more or less every culture on the planet...informative article
Hi Irene. Thank you for your nice comments! If you register with the website that’s all you need to receive the newsletter.
Just follow the link on the top menu.
I think it is also very interesting that Yggdrasil can be seen as a metaphor for the axis of the earth, coming from very ancient knowledge of the astronomical phenomenon of precession. This and many other similar world-tree and earth-navel mythologies are compared and discussed in a book called Hamlet's Mill.
Is it the "milk of Mother Earth" though? I think it's interesting how many of the creation myths describe an act of procreation, of fertilization, eggs and semen, etc., which results in life. The Earth is the Mother, who is the Father? Helios, perhaps? The Sun god...in other words, stars.
Elements all the way up to iron (Fe) are created in the stellar fusion process. Higher elements are generated in the intense energetic environments of novas and supernovas, which could be likened to the spasm of ejaculation.…
Once you stop laughing, perhaps consider another possibility:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110613-space-science-star-water-bullets-kristensen/
Perhaps water is not the milk of the mother but the seed of the father....?
Yes. Most of these sneezeless heathens will perish in the First Wipe.
Nothing like the smell of elitist condescension in the morning! Tell us what you really think.
I'd like to see more on this subject as well. It is fascinating. There are several other articles here that discuss ancient humanity's use of and reverence for "sky metal".
Have you ever gone hiking in the wilderness? Try going in a straight line, no matter what obstacle lies in the way. You'll quickly find that attempting to do so is not only extremely difficult in certain places, it is also incredibly dangerous. A deviation of tens of meters to go around certain features is much more preferrable to risking death or major injury just to keep the path straight.
Yes. It can be done with relatively simple physical tools. The mental or conceptual tools required are not as simple, however. Math. Astrogation. Orienteering. Et cetera.....
I'm not saying ancient man was incapable of understanding those concepts. However, I do think they do not arise without context.
That is what makes sites such as this so interesting, imo.
Just now saw this reply. I agree with you 100%.
Shamsheer is definitley a beautiful sword.
That’s pretty interesting. It really does make you wonder what their lives could have been like.
Dang. She definitely sounds hardcore.
Pages