Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
UM-Bot

The gods vs aliens debate

91 posts in this topic

Sorry about that,I blended the two posts together and made it worse when I tried to edit. I blame myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same principle wether it's the last 100 years or thousands of years ago,the fact is that from the first moment Homo Sapiens fashioned their first tool,our ability to fashion our enviroment to suit our needs was born.

I just wonder sometimes wether the Alien intervention crowd think that the little green men are going to rush in and save our apparently doomed Civilisation.All i know is our destiny was always going to be ours and ours alone. There is an undeniable common thread among ancient societies about beings,coming to the earth from above,from the heavens,from the stars,and implanting in the ancients minds who and how and why they should be worshipped as God,and also that they will return at some point.So the ancients recorded these events in stone and tried to emulate these Gods in anticipation of this return.If you don't believe in gods or aliens,thats OK,but this is what happened and we see it in what the ancients left us.

It is not about belief,but fact and the fact is there absolutely no evidence that we were visited by Aliens.Present me with an artifact of Alien origin from three or four thousand years ago and i will believe.

Sitchin,Von Daniken,Childress and all the rest of the Alien interventionists present you with flawed sometimes fake evidence, and they are not prepared to present it any way but to their own scenario.As for your events recorded in stone,i say that interpretation is how you see things and want to see things regardless what the true facts may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same principle wether it's the last 100 years or thousands of years ago,the fact is that from the first moment Homo Sapiens fashioned their first tool,our ability to fashion our enviroment to suit our needs was born.

I just wonder sometimes wether the Alien intervention crowd think that the little green men are going to rush in and save our apparently doomed Civilisation.All i know is our destiny was always going to be ours and ours alone.

I just wonder all the time how so many humans are utterly unaware of the size of the universe. At least that's the way they talk, thinking that ours is the only planet that could possibly be occupied. Usually, religious faith is a factor in the equation for that small-minded view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the book of Genesis it states that God created Eve from Adams rib...wait a minute...how did God know that you could create one being from the cells of another of the same?...and why would God tell ancient people about this?...Oh I know,GOD wanted us to worship him/her as an all powerful and omnipotent being so that when he/she returns we would all bow.This artifact is presented from the belief system of 1/5 people on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder all the time how so many humans are utterly unaware of the size of the universe. At least that's the way they talk, thinking that ours is the only planet that could possibly be occupied. Usually, religious faith is a factor in the equation for that small-minded view.

Who says that Earth would be the only planet in the Universe that is occupied? Frankly, I know of nobody saying that. Are you equaling the disbelief in ET visitation on Earth with the disbelief of life elsewhere in the Universe? If so, you would be rather incorrect in my honest opinion. Personally, most people I know adhere to the former, where I do not know a single person adhering to the latter.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Say what you want about the man Badeskov, but he was a scholar on the Sumerian civilization.

If you are referring to Sitchin and/or von Daniken, then neither was a scholar in anything. The definition of a scholar is:

1 : a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher :pupil

2a : a person who has done advanced study in a special fieldb : a learned person

3: a holder of a scholarship

Obviously neither was a pupil or attending school, nor did they hold a scholarship, so 1 and 3 are out. And it is very obvious that neither was a learned person or had done advanced studies in the field of the Sumerian civilization. Real scholars (i.e. experts) has completely torn apart what said two characters have written - never have they offered a rebuttal, only the usual regurgitation of their misconceptions and mistakes. And it is not a debate whether true or not - if you read the www.sitchiniswrong.com link you could actually clearly see the difference between real experts and the quacks. There is simply no discussion about who is wrong and who is right.

And his point that at some point in human history a huge and significant leap in knowledge and technology occured cannot be denied.

Again, I ask you the same as I did Royal. Please point out what those huge leaps in knowledge and technology were. I know you cannot because they simply do not exist.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THis is a topic of need of place to hide behind lockeed doors ! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if it were a book, we could burn it! :ph34r:

So, Badeskov, scholarship can take place ONLY in an institution?

Hmmm, rather a narrow view of things. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if it were a book, we could burn it! :ph34r:

So, Badeskov, scholarship can take place ONLY in an institution?

Hmmm, rather a narrow view of things. :rofl:

No, that was not what was stated. Here is the pertinent part from the above definition (sorry if it was confusing as I apparent missed a line break above):

2a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field

b : a learned person

So it could also be a learned person, from wherever that learned knowledge might come from. But it is very obvious that neither Daniken nor Sitchin are learned in the field of Sumerian civilizations. The former even admitted to fabricating evidence to support some of his fanciful tales. A small excerpt on Daniken from Wiki:

Scientists and historians have rejected his ideas, claiming that the book's conclusions were based on faulty, pseudoscientific evidence, some of which was later demonstrated to be fraudulent or fabricated, and under illogical premises. For example, Ronald Story wrote a book rebutting Däniken's ideas in 1976 titled The Space Gods Revealed. A similar internationally bestselling book, entitled Crash Go The Chariots by Clifford Wilson, appeared in 1972.

Soon after the publication of Chariots of the Gods? von Däniken was accused of stealing the ideas of French author Robert Charroux.[4]

A 2004 article in Skeptic magazine[5] states that von Däniken plagiarized many of the book's concepts from The Morning of the Magicians, that this book in turn was heavily influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos, and that the core of the ancient astronaut theory originates in H. P. Lovecraft's short stories "The Call of Cthulhu" and "At the Mountains of Madness".

170px-QtubIronPillar.JPG
magnify-clip.pngThe iron pillar of Delhi, erected by Chandragupta II the Great, which Von Däniken claimed did not rust.

One artifact offered as evidence in the book has been disclaimed by Däniken himself. Chariots asserts that a non-rusting iron pillar in India was evidence of extraterrestrial influence, but Däniken admitted in a Playboy interview (vol.21, no.8, August 1974) that the pillar was man-made and that as far as supporting his theories goes "we can forget about this iron thing." Neither this nor any other discredited evidence has been removed from subsequent editions of Chariots of the Gods.[6][7]

One book commonly cited in support of von Däniken is The Spaceships of Ezekiel by former NASA design engineer Josef F. Blumrich (March 17, 1913 – February 10, 2002), who also wrote a summary article, "The spaceships of the prophet Ezekiel".[8]

That said, there are simply no fantastic leaps in anything that cannot be ascribed to humans evolving socially and technologically. At least I know of no such examples.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most distasteful parts of participating online is having to deal with all the personal attacks. Here, a man, or two men are attacked by a poster, and that attack in the poster's mind justifies ignoring, or judging as wrong and inaccurate, what the person being attacked has said.

Ah, the beauty of a simple mind.

Sorry Badeskov, the theory put forth by both your enemies, and their documentation and reasoning for it, are fairly persuasive to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most distasteful parts of participating online is having to deal with all the personal attacks. Here, a man, or two men are attacked by a poster, and that attack in the poster's mind justifies ignoring, or judging as wrong and inaccurate, what the person being attacked has said.

Ah, the beauty of a simple mind.

Sorry Badeskov, the theory put forth by both your enemies, and their documentation and reasoning for it, are fairly persuasive to me.

That was not an attack on either man. That was simply a factual description. Specifically referring to Daniken it is factual that his evidence is faulty and based on pseudoscience and that he furthermore has fabricated evidence. That is not a personal attack, that is simply an accurate description of his modus operandi. It seems to me that you haven't read anything scientific on the work of said two characters, as otherwise I am sure they wouldn't be that persuasive for you.

Turning to Sitchin, have a look at this link, which has now been posted a couple of times. There Mr. Sitchin's reasoning is torn completely apart and it is clearly shown that the man had no idea what he was actually doing. The examples are numerous. From the intro:

Welcome to the website devoted to addressing the claims of the ancient astronaut hypothesis popularized in the writings of Zecharia Sitchin. Who's behind this site? My name is Mike Heiser. Who am I? The short answer is that I'm a scholar of biblical and ancient Near Eastern languages, cultures, and religions. Why do I bother with this stuff? Because I don't like ancient texts manipulated to promote false claims. If I were a lawyer I'd feel professionally obligated to tell you if someone was giving you bad legal advice. If I was a medical doctor, I'd owe you the truth if I knew the medicine you were taking was bogus or could kill you. If I was an accountant, I'd let you know if a neighbor's tax advice could put you in jail. I'm none of those things, but I'm trying to provide the same service in my areas of expertise. I can tell you--and show you--that what Sitchin has written about Nibiru, the Anunnaki, the book of Genesis, the Nephilim, and a host of other things has absolutely no basis in the real data of the ancient world. I don't doubt that Zecharia Sitchin is a nice guy; he's just wrong. Nothing personal.

Emphasis mine. Please do read some of the parts on that site. It is thoroughly grounded in the Sumerian history and civilization and it is pretty damning for the works of Sitchin.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all that Badeskov, but I read my own books, study my own material, and make my own decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for all that Badeskov, but I read my own books, study my own material, and make my own decisions.

Seems like your material is wrong.....both Sitchin and Von Daniken are a joke,their evidence flawed and even fake.Go ahead make your own decisions...they will be all wrong.

Oh and if you want a real laugh watch the latest season of Ancient Aliens.....it's hilarious.......w00t.gif

Edited by shaddow134

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hmmm....double post.

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all that Badeskov, but I read my own books, study my own material, and make my own decisions.

And I certainly respect that Babe Ruth. I just felt that it would suit the current discussion to make the breadth of information a little larger :) That said, I think you could benefit from a little more nuanced view of the topic at hand. I won't even begin to pretend to know what your information material is, but it seems like it is a bit skewed towards the more pseudo-scientific segment.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most distasteful parts of participating online is having to deal with all the personal attacks. Here, a man, or two men are attacked by a poster, and that attack in the poster's mind justifies ignoring, or judging as wrong and inaccurate, what the person being attacked has said.

Ah, the beauty of a simple mind.

Sorry Badeskov, the theory put forth by both your enemies, and their documentation and reasoning for it, are fairly persuasive to me.

You might be interested in this Wiki about Von Däniken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be interested in this Wiki about Von Däniken:

http://en.wikipedia....on_D%C3%A4niken

His whole life is one big fraud really,seems he can't help himself....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, Wikipedia's got it goin' on, fer sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh yeah, Wikipedia's got it goin' on, fer sure

Do you dispute any of the stated?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you dispute any of the stated?

Cheers,

Badeskov

With all due respect sir, 'the stated' is a matter of somebody's opinion.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

With all due respect sir, 'the stated' is a matter of somebody's opinion.....

Is it a matter of opinion that the man was convicted of stealing?

It is a matter of opinion that the man was convicted of fraud?

It is a matter of opinion that the man himself has admitted to fabricate evidence?

It is a matter of opinion that the man in his books has referenced documents known as fraud as real documents?

It is a matter of opinion that the man in his book "Chariot of the Gods" claims a map shows buried mountains in Antarctica, when in fact the map doesn't show Antarctica at all?

...

...

...

The examples are numerous, well established and beyond discussion. You can have you own opinion, of course, but the fact of the matter is that the 'stated' is not a matter of opinion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies Badeskov. I was speaking more about Sitchen, whose book I have read.

I won't dispute any police records that exist about either man.

But even before that, I am discussing the IDEA presented in the thread topic, NOT the men. Hope that helps. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies Badeskov. I was speaking more about Sitchen, whose book I have read.

I won't dispute any police records that exist about either man.

But even before that, I am discussing the IDEA presented in the thread topic, NOT the men. Hope that helps. :rolleyes:

How nice of you to say that.

Do you also have something to say about the links I posted??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies Badeskov. I was speaking more about Sitchen, whose book I have read.

I won't dispute any police records that exist about either man.

But even before that, I am discussing the IDEA presented in the thread topic, NOT the men. Hope that helps. :rolleyes:

No worries, BR - I just misunderstood you then :)

The idea presented in this thread is, at best, ludicrous in my honest opinion. That Sitchin made up stuff and had no clue what he was doing (or were deliberately misrepresenting) there is no question about. It is all well documented, so that is not an opinion either.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.